2018 USDA Food Security Report

United States Department of Agriculture
Economic
Research
Service
Household Food Security
Economic in the United States in 2018
Research
Report
Number 270
September 2019
Alisha Coleman-Jensen
Matthew P. Rabbitt
Christian A. Gregory
Anita Singh
Economic Research Service

www.ers.usda.gov
Recommended citation format for this publication:
Coleman-Jensen, Alisha, Matthew P. Rabbitt, Christian A. Gregory, and Anita Singh.

2019. Household Food Security in the United States in 2018, ERR-270, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Use of commercial and trade names does not imply approval or constitute endorsement by USDA.
To ensure the quality of its research reports and satisfy governmentwide standards, ERS requires that all research
reports with substantively new material be reviewed by qualified technical research peers. This technical peer
review process, coordinated by ERS' Peer Review Coordinating Council, allows experts who possess the technical
background, perspective, and expertise to provide an objective and meaningful assessment of the output’s substantive
content and clarity of communication during the publication’s review.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and
policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA
programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity
(including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived
from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or
activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines
vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large
print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at
(202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally,
program information may be made available in languages other than English.
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027,
found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to
USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call
(866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of
the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202)
690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Economic
Research Household Food Security in the
Service
Economic
United States in 2018
Research
Report
Number 270 Alisha Coleman-Jensen, alisha.coleman-jensen@usda.gov
September 2019 Matthew P. Rabbitt, matthew.rabbitt@usda.gov
Christian A. Gregory, christian.gregory@usda.gov
Anita Singh, USDA, Food and Nutrition Service
Abstract
An estimated 88.9 percent of U.S. households were food secure throughout the entire year
in 2018, with access at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household
members. The remaining households (11.1 percent, down from 11.8 percent in 2017) were
food insecure at least some time during the year, including 4.3 percent with very low food
security (not significantly different from 4.5 percent in 2017), where the food intake of
one or more household members was reduced and their eating patterns disrupted at times
because the household lacked money and other resources for obtaining food. The 2018
prevalence of food insecurity declined, for the first time, to pre-recession (2007) levels.
Among children, changes from 2017 in food insecurity and very low food security were
not statistically significant. Children and adults were food insecure in 7.1 percent of U.S.
households with children in 2018; very low food security among children was 0.6 percent.
In 2018, the typical food-secure household spent 21 percent more on food than the typical
food-insecure household of the same size and household composition. About 56 percent
of food-insecure households participated in one or more of the three largest Federal food
and nutrition assistance programs (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP,
formerly food stamps); Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC); and the National School Lunch Program) during the month prior to the
2018 survey.
Keywords: food security, food security, food insecurity, food spending, food pantry, soup
kitchen, emergency kitchen, material well-being, material hardship, Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program, SNAP, Food Stamp Program, National School Lunch Program, Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, WIC
About the Authors
Alisha Coleman-Jensen is a sociologist and Matthew Rabbitt is an economist in the Food Assistance
Branch, and Christian Gregory is an economist in the Diet, Safety, and Health Economics Branch,
Food Economics Division, of the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Anita Singh is chief of the SNAP Evaluation Branch, SNAP Research and Analysis Division, Office
of Policy Support, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Jean Buzby, Constance Newman, Michael D. Smith, Jessica E. Todd, Jay
Variyam, and Michele Ver Ploeg of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service
(ERS), for their reviews. Thanks also to ERS editor Dale Simms and ERS designer Cynthia A. Ray
for their work in producing the report.
ii
Household Food Security in the United States in 2018, ERR-270
USDA, Economic Research Service
Contents
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Household Food Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Prevalence of Food Insecurity—National Conditions and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Prevalence of Food Insecurity by Selected Household Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Prevalence of Food Insecurity by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Household Spending on Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
Food Expenditures by Selected Household Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
Food Expenditures and Household Food Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
Federal Food and Nutrition Assistance Programs and Food Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Food Security of Households That Received Food and Nutrition Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Participation in Federal Food and Nutrition Assistance Programs by
Food-Insecure Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
iii
List of Tables
Table 1A—Households and individuals by food security status of household, 1998-2018. . . . . . . . . 7

Table 1B—Households with children by food security status and children
by food security status of household, 1998-2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 2—Households by food security status and selected household characteristics, 2018. . . . . . 15
Table 3—Prevalence of food security and food insecurity in households with children
by selected household characteristics, 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 4—Prevalence of household food insecurity and very low food security by State,
average 2016-18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 5—Change in prevalence of household food insecurity and very low food security
by State, 2016-18 (average), 2013-15 (average), and 2006-08 (average). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Table 6—Weekly household food spending per person and relative to the household cost
of the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), 2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table 7—Weekly household food spending per person and relative to the cost of the
Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) by food security status, 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Table 8—Percentage of households by food security status and participation in selected
Federal food and nutrition assistance programs, 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Table 9—Participation of food-insecure households in selected Federal food and
nutrition assistance programs, 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Additional tables are available in: Coleman-Jensen, Alisha, Matthew P. Rabbitt, Christian A.
Gregory, and Anita Singh. 2019. Statistical Supplement to Household Food Security in the United
States in 2018, AP-081, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
iv
Summary
A report summary from the Economic Research Service September 2019
Economic
Research
Service
Economic

in the United States in 2018
Household Food Security in the
Research
Report
Number 270
September 2019
Alisha Coleman-Jensen
Matthew P. Rabbitt
Christian A. Gregory
Anita Singh
Alisha Coleman-Jensen, Matthew P. Rabbitt, Christian A. Gregory,

and Anita Singh
What Is the Issue?

Most U.S. households have consistent, dependable access to enough food for active, healthy
living—they are food secure. But some households experience food insecurity at times during the
year, meaning their access to adequate food is limited by a lack of money and other resources.
USDA’s food and nutrition assistance programs aim to increase food security by providing low-
income households access to food for a healthful diet, as well as nutrition education. USDA moni-
tors the extent and severity of food insecurity in U.S. households through an annual, nationally
representative survey sponsored and analyzed by USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS).
This report presents statistics from the survey that cover household food security, food expendi-
tures, and use of Federal food and nutrition assistance programs in 2018.
What Did the Study Find?

Main findings:
• The 2018 prevalence of food insecurity declined, for the first time, to the pre-recession
(2007) level of 11.1 percent.
• In 2018, 88.9 percent of U.S. households were food secure. The remaining 11.1 percent (14.3
million households) were food insecure. Food-insecure households (those with low and
very low food security) had difficulty at some time during the year providing enough food
for all their members due to a lack of resources. The decline from 2017 (11.8 percent) was
statistically significant and continued a decline from a high of 14.9 percent in 2011.
• In 2018, 4.3 percent of U.S. households (5.6 million households) had very low food
security, not significantly different from 4.5 percent in 2017. In this more severe range
of food insecurity, the food intake of some household members was reduced and normal
eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year due to limited resources.
Findings for households with children:

• Children were food insecure at times during 2018 in 7.1 percent of U.S. households with
children (2.7 million households), not significantly different from 7.7 percent in 2017.
These households with food insecurity among children were unable at times to provide
ERS is a primary source
of economic research and adequate, nutritious food for their children.
analysis from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture,
providing timely informa-
tion on economic and policy
issues related to agriculture,
food, the environment, and
rural America.
www.ers.usda.gov
Prevalence of food insecurity in 2018 is down from 2017
Percent of households
16
Food insecurity
(including low and very low food security)
12
Very low food security

4
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population
Survey Food Security Supplement.
• While children are usually shielded from the disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake that char-
acterize very low food security, in 2018 both children and adults experienced instances of very low food
security in 0.6 percent of households with children (220,000 households), essentially unchanged from 0.7
percent in 2017. These households with very low food security among children reported that children were
hungry, skipped a meal, or did not eat for a whole day because there was not enough money for food.
Findings for population subgroups and States:

• Rates of food insecurity were higher than the national average for the following groups: households with
incomes near or below the Federal poverty line, all households with children and particularly households
with children headed by single women or single men, women and men living alone, Black- and Hispanic-
headed households, and households in principal cities.
• The prevalence of food insecurity varied considerably from State to State, ranging from 7.8 percent in New
Hampshire to 16.8 percent in New Mexico in 2016-18. (Data for 3 years were combined to provide more
reliable State-level statistics.)
Findings for food spending and Federal nutrition assistance participation:

• The typical (median) food-secure household spent 21 percent more for food than the typical food-inse-
cure household of the same size and composition. These estimates include food purchases made with
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.
• About 56 percent of food-insecure households in the survey reported that, in the previous month, they had partic-
ipated in one or more of the three largest Federal nutrition assistance programs (SNAP; Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and National School Lunch Program).
How Was the Study Conducted?

Data for the ERS food security reports come from an annual survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau as
the December supplement to the monthly Current Population Survey. ERS sponsors the annual Food Security
Supplement survey and compiles and analyzes the responses. The 2018 survey covered 37,300 households,
comprising a representative sample of about 130 million U.S. households. The survey asked one adult respondent
per household questions about experiences and behaviors that indicate food insecurity during the calendar year,
such as being unable to afford balanced meals, cutting the size of meals, or being hungry because of too little
money for food. The food security status of the household was assigned based on the number of food-insecure
conditions reported.
www.ers.usda.gov
Household Food Security in the
Introduction
Since 1995, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has collected information annually on food access
and adequacy, food spending, and sources of food assistance for the U.S. population. The informa-
tion is collected in an annual survey, the Food Security Supplement, conducted by the U.S. Census
Bureau as a supplement to the nationally representative Current Population Survey.1 A major
impetus for this data collection is to provide information about the prevalence and severity of food
insecurity in U.S. households. Annual monitoring of food security contributes to the effective opera-
tion of the Federal nutrition assistance programs as well as private food assistance programs and
other government initiatives aimed at reducing food insecurity. Previous reports in the series are
available on the ERS website.
This report updates the national statistics on food security in calendar year 2018, household food
spending, and the use of Federal food and nutrition assistance by food-insecure households, using
data collected in the December 2018 food security survey—the 24th annual survey in the Nation’s
food security monitoring system. Additional statistics—including the prevalence of food insecurity
during the 30 days prior to the food security survey, the frequency of food-insecure conditions, and
use of food pantries and emergency kitchens—are available in the Statistical Supplement to this
report (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2019).
1See Coleman-Jensen (2015) for the history of the food security measurement project and the development of the food
security measures.
1
Food security—access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life—is one of
several conditions necessary for a population to be healthy and well nourished. This section provides
information on food security and food insecurity in U.S. households over the course of the year
ending in December 2018.
Methods
The statistics presented in this report are based on data collected in the Food Security Supplement
to the Current Population Survey (CPS) conducted in December 2018.2 The CPS currently includes
about 50,000 households and is representative, at State and national levels, of the civilian, noninsti-
tutionalized population of the United States. In December 2018, 37,300 households completed the
Food Security Supplement; the remaining households were unable or unwilling to do so. Survey
sample weights were calculated by the U.S. Census Bureau to indicate how many households were
represented by each household that responded to the survey.3 All statistics in this report were calcu-
lated by applying the Food Security Supplement weights to responses by the surveyed households, so
the statistics are nationally representative.
Unless otherwise noted, statistical differences described in the text are significant at the 90-percent
confidence level.4 Statistical significance depends both on the size of the difference of the estimates
and the precision of the estimates—or the size of the standard error of the estimates. Standard errors
vary across population subgroups.
Household food security statistics presented here are based on a measure of food security calculated
from responses to a series of questions about conditions and behaviors that characterize households
when they are having difficulty meeting basic food needs.5 Each question asks whether the condition
or behavior occurred at any time during the previous 12 months and specifies a lack of money and
other resources to obtain food as the reason. Voluntary fasting or dieting to lose weight are thereby
excluded from the measure. The series includes three questions about food conditions of the house-
hold as a whole and seven about food conditions of adults in the household; if children are present,
2The food security survey was conducted December 9-18, 2018.

3In 2018, 25.5 percent of households that responded to the monthly December CPS did not complete the Food Security
Supplement. Reweighting of the Supplement takes into consideration income and other information about households that
completed the labor-force portion of the survey but not the Food Security Supplement. This corrects, to some extent, biases
that could result from nonresponse to the Supplement by households that completed only the labor-force part of the survey.
4Standard errors of national-level estimates from 2011 to the present were calculated using balanced repeated replication
(BRR) methods based on replicate weights computed for the CPS Food Security Supplement by the U.S. Census Bureau. For
years before 2011, standard errors of national estimates use a design factor of 1.6 based on the complex CPS sample design.
State-level estimates from 2010 to the present use replicate weights computed for the CPS Food Security Supplement. Before
2010, standard errors of State-level estimates were calculated using jackknife replication methods with “month in sample”
groups considered as separate independent samples. This report uses the phrase essentially unchanged to describe differences
between estimates of a statistic for 2 years that are not statistically significant at the 90-percent confidence level. Standard
errors of all estimates are available from the authors by request.
5The methods used to measure the extent and severity of food insecurity have been described in a number of studies
(Hamilton et al., 1997a, 1997b; Andrews et al., 1998; Bickel et al., 1998; Carlson et al., 1999; Bickel et al., 2000; Nord and
Bickel, 2002). See also the assessment of the measurement methods by a panel of the Committee on National Statistics
(National Research Council, 2006). Further details on the development of the measure are provided on the ERS website.
2
an additional eight questions about their food conditions are included (see box, “Questions Used To
Assess the Food Security of Households in the CPS Food Security Survey,” page 4).6
Responses to the 18 food security questions are reported in tables S-5 to S-6 of the Statistical
Supplement (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2019). The food security status of each interviewed household
is determined by the number of food-insecure conditions and behaviors the household reports.
Households are classified as food secure if they report no food-insecure conditions or only one
or two food-insecure conditions. (Food-insecure conditions are indicated by responses of “often”
or “sometimes” to questions 1-3 and 11-13; “almost every month” or “some months but not every
month” to questions 5, 10, and 17; and “yes” to the other questions.) They are classified as food inse-
cure if they report three or more food-insecure conditions (based on questions 1-10 for households
without children and questions 1-18 for households with children).7 Households are classified as
having food-insecure children if they report two or more food-insecure conditions among the chil-
dren in response to questions 11-18.8
Food-insecure households are further classified as having either low food security or very low food
security.9 The very low food security category identifies households in which the food intake of one
or more members was reduced and eating patterns disrupted because of insufficient money and other
resources for food (see box, “What Is ‘Very Low Food Security’?” on page 5). Households without
children are classified as having very low food security if they report six or more food-insecure
conditions (based on questions 1-10). Households with children age 0-17 are classified as having very
low food security if they report eight or more food-insecure conditions among adults and/or children
(based on questions 1-18).10 They are further classified as having very low food security among
children if they report five or more food-insecure conditions among the children (that is, if they
respond affirmatively to five or more of questions 11-18).
6An official Spanish translation of the food security questions is used in the survey and available on the ERS website.
ERS assessed the effect of interview language on Hispanics versus non-Hispanics and found no differences in the statistical
properties of the food security measure (Rabbitt and Coleman-Jensen, 2017).
7To reduce the survey burden on higher income respondents, households with incomes above 185 percent of the Federal
poverty line that give no indication of food-access problems on either of two preliminary screening questions are deemed to
be food secure and are not asked the questions in the food security assessment series. The preliminary screening questions
asked of all households are as follows:
• People do different things when they are running out of money for food in order to make their food or their food
money go further. In the last 12 months, since December of last year, did you ever run short of money and try to
make your food or your food money go further?
• Which of these statements best describes the food eaten in your household—enough of the kinds of food we want to
eat, enough but not always the kinds of food we want to eat, sometimes not enough to eat, or often not enough to eat?
8Both qualitative and quantitative research studies have suggested that parents’ reports of their children’s food insecurity
sometimes differed from adolescents’ self-reported food insecurity and that parents were sometimes unaware of the degree to
which children reduced their own food intake due to household food insecurity (Fram et al., 2011; Nord and Hanson, 2012).
The extent to which underreporting of children’s food insecurity may exist is unknown (see pp. 9-10 in Coleman-Jensen,
McFall, and Nord (2013) for a discussion of research on parent-reported and self-reported food insecurity among children).
A comprehensive review of diet quality and food security found evidence that adults shield children from food insecurity
(Hanson and Connor, 2014).
9Prior to 2006, households with low food security were described as “food insecure without hunger” and households with
very low food security were described as “food insecure with hunger.” Changes in these descriptions were made in 2006 at
the recommendation of the Committee on National Statistics (National Research Council, 2006) in order to distinguish the
physiological state of hunger from indicators of food availability. The criteria by which households were classified remained
unchanged.
10Implications of differences in raw score thresholds for very low food security between households with and without
children are discussed in Nord and Coleman-Jensen (2014) and Coleman-Jensen, Rabbitt, and Gregory (2017).
3
Questions Used To Assess the Food Security of Households in the CPS Food
Security Supplement
1. “We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more.” Was that often, sometimes, or
never true for you in the last 12 months?
2. “The food that we bought just didn’t last and we didn’t have money to get more.” Was that often, sometimes, or
3. “We couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
4. In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in the household ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals
because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
5. (If yes to question 4) How often did this happen—almost every month, some months but not every month, or in
only 1 or 2 months?
6. In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn’t enough money for food?
(Yes/No)
7. In the last 12 months, were you ever hungry, but didn’t eat, because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
8. In the last 12 months, did you lose weight because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
9. In the last 12 months did you or other adults in your household ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn’t
enough money for food? (Yes/No)
only 1 or 2 months?
(Questions 11-18 were asked only if the household included children age 0-17)
11. “We relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed our children because we were running out of money to buy
food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?
12. “We couldn’t feed our children a balanced meal, because we couldn’t afford that.” Was that often, sometimes, or
13. “The children were not eating enough because we just couldn’t afford enough food.” Was that often, sometimes, or
14. In the last 12 months, did you ever cut the size of any of the children’s meals because there wasn’t enough money
for food? (Yes/No)
15. In the last 12 months, were the children ever hungry but you just couldn’t afford more food? (Yes/No)
16. In the last 12 months, did any of the children ever skip a meal because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)
only 1 or 2 months?
18. In the last 12 months did any of the children ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn’t enough money for
food? (Yes/No)
Coding of Responses
Questions 1-3 and 11-13 are coded as affirmative (i.e., possibly indicating food insecurity) if the response is “often”
or “sometimes.” Questions 5, 10, and 17 are coded as affirmative if the response is “almost every month” or “some
months but not every month.” The remaining questions are coded as affirmative if the response is “yes.”
Assessing Food Security Status in Households without Children
Households without children are classified as food insecure if they report 3 or more indications of food insecurity in
response to the first 10 questions; they are classified as having very low food security if they report 6 or more food-
insecure conditions out of the first 10 questions.
Assessing Food Security Status in Households with Children Age 0-17
Households with children are classified as food insecure if they report 3 or more indications of food insecurity in
response to the entire set of 18 questions; they are classified as having very low food security if they report 8 or more
food-insecure conditions in response to the entire set of 18 questions.
The food security status of children in the household is assessed by responses to the child-referenced questions (ques-
tions 11-18). Households reporting two or more of these conditions are classified as having food insecurity among
children. Households reporting five or more are classified as having very low food security among children.
4
What Is “Very Low Food Security”?
Very low food security can be characterized in terms • 97 percent reported that an adult had cut the size
of the conditions that households in this category of meals or skipped meals because there was not
reported in the food security survey. Households enough money for food; 90 percent reported that
without children classified as having very low food this had occurred in 3 or more months.
security reported six or more food-insecure condi- • 94 percent reported that they had eaten less
tions, and households with children reported eight or than they felt they should because there was not
more food-insecure conditions, including conditions enough money for food.
among both adults and children. Thus, the conditions
• 69 percent reported that they had been hungry but
reported by respondents reflect the definition of “very
did not eat because they could not afford enough
low food security”: at times during the year, the food
food.
intake of household members was reduced and their
normal eating patterns were disrupted because the • 47 percent reported having lost weight because
household lacked money and other resources for they did not have enough money for food.
food. In the 2018 survey, households classified as • 32 percent reported that an adult did not eat
having very low food security (representing an esti- for a whole day because there was not enough
mated 5.6 million households nationwide) reported money for food; 25 percent reported that this had
the following specific conditions: occurred in 3 or more months.
• 98 percent reported having worried that their food As noted above, all households without children
would run out before they got money to buy more. classified as having very low food security reported
• 97 percent reported that the food they bought just at least six of these conditions. The majority of
did not last and they did not have money to get households with very low food security, 70 percent,
more. reported seven or more food-insecure conditions.
(Conditions reported by households with children
• 96 percent reported that they could not afford to
were similar to those without children, but the
eat balanced meals.
reported food-insecure conditions of both adults and
children were taken into account.)
Percentage of households reporting each indicator of food insecurity, by food security status, 2018
Worried food would run out

Food bought did not last
Could not afford balanced meal
Cut size of meal or skipped meal
Cut or skipped meal in 3+ months
Ate less than felt should
Hungry but did not eat
Lost weight
Food secure
Did not eat whole day Low food security
Did not eat whole day, 3+ months Very low food security
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau,
2018 Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement.
5
Low and very low food security differ in the extent and character of the adjustments the household
makes to its eating patterns and food intake. Households classified as having low food security have
reported multiple indications of food acquisition problems and reduced diet quality, but typically
have reported few, if any, indications of reduced food intake. Those classified as having very low
food security have reported multiple indications of reduced food intake and disrupted eating patterns
due to inadequate resources for food. In most, but not all households with very low food security, the
survey respondent reported that he or she was hungry at some time during the year but did not eat
because there was not enough money for food.
Prevalence of Food Insecurity—National Conditions and Trends

An estimated 88.9 percent of U.S. households were food secure throughout the entire year in 2018
(fig. 1, table 1A). In concept, “food secure” means that all household members had access at all
times to enough food for an active, healthy life (Anderson, 1990).11 The remaining 11.1 percent (14.3
million households) were food insecure at some time during the year. Food insecurity means that
households were, at times, unable to acquire adequate food for one or more household members
because they had insufficient money and other resources for food. A majority of food-insecure
households—those classified as having low food security (but not very low food security)—avoided
substantial reductions or disruptions in food intake, in some cases by relying on a few basic foods
and reducing variety in their diets. But 4.3 percent (5.6 million households) had very low food secu-
rity. Very low food security means that households were food insecure to the extent that eating
patterns of one or more household members were disrupted and their food intake reduced, at
least some time during the year, because they could not afford enough food.
Among U.S. households with children under age 18, 86.1 percent were food secure in 2018. The
remaining 13.9 percent of households with children were food insecure at some time during the year
(fig. 2, table 1B). This prevalence is down significantly from 15.7 percent in 2017. Parents and care-
givers often are able to maintain normal or near-normal diets and meal patterns for their children,
even when the parents themselves are food insecure. In about half of food-insecure households with
children in 2018, only adults were food insecure (6.8 percent of households with children). However,
both children and adults were food insecure in 7.1 percent of households with children (2.7 million
households) in 2018. In 0.6 percent of households with children (220,000 households), food inse-
curity among children was so severe that caregivers reported that children were hungry, skipped a
meal, or did not eat for a whole day because there was not enough money for food. These households
are described as having very low food security among children. Sometimes only older children
in such households suffer the more severe effects of food insecurity, while younger children are
protected from those effects (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2013; Nord, 2009a).
11Food security statistics, as operationally measured for this report using survey data, are based on household responses
to items about whether the household was able to obtain enough food to meet its needs. This operational measure does not
specifically address whether the household members’ food intake was sufficient for active, healthy lives—the conceptual
definition of food security. Nonetheless, research based on other data collections has found survey-based measures of food
security to be statistically associated with various outcomes involving health, nutrition, and children’s development in a man-
ner that generally supports the link between the report’s survey-based measure of food security and the conceptual definition
of food security (see, for example, Coleman-Jensen et al., 2013; Gregory and Coleman-Jensen, 2017; Nord, 2009a; Nord and
Hopwood, 2007; Nord and Kantor, 2006).
6
Figure 1
U.S. households by food security status, 2018
Food-insecure households—11.1%
Households with low food
security—6.8%
Food-secure
households—88.9% Households with very low food
security—4.3%
Table 1A
Households and individuals by food security status of household, 1998-2018
Food insecure
Category With low With very low
and year Total1 Food secure All food security food security
1,000 1,000 Percent 1,000 Percent 1,000 Percent 1,000 Percent
Households:
2018 129,245 114,934 88.9 14,311 11.1 8,730 6.8 5,581 4.3
2017 127,272 112,254 88.2 15,018 11.8 9,261 7.3 5,757 4.5
2016 126,401 110,850 87.7 15,551 12.3 9,413 7.4 6,138 4.9
2015 125,164 109,315 87.3 15,849 12.7 9,540 7.7 6,309 5.0
2014 124,044 106,618 86.0 17,426 14.0 10,488 8.4 6,938 5.6
2013 122,579 105,070 85.7 17,509 14.3 10,664 8.7 6,845 5.6
2012 121,546 103,914 85.5 17,632 14.5 10,679 8.8 6,953 5.7
2011 119,484 101,631 85.1 17,853 14.9 11,014 9.2 6,839 5.7
2010 118,756 101,527 85.5 17,229 14.5 10,872 9.1 6,357 5.4
2009 118,174 100,820 85.3 17,354 14.7 10,601 9.0 6,753 5.7
2008 117,565 100,416 85.4 17,149 14.6 10,426 8.9 6,723 5.7
2007 117,100 104,089 88.9 13,011 11.1 8,262 7.0 4,749 4.1
2006 115,609 102,961 89.1 12,648 10.9 8,031 6.9 4,617 4.0
2005 114,437 101,851 89.0 12,586 11.0 8,158 7.1 4,428 3.9
2004 112,967 99,473 88.1 13,494 11.9 9,045 8.0 4,449 3.9
2003 112,214 99,631 88.8 12,583 11.2 8,663 7.7 3,920 3.5
2002 108,601 96,543 88.9 12,058 11.1 8,259 7.6 3,799 3.5
2001 107,824 96,303 89.3 11,521 10.7 8,010 7.4 3,511 3.3
2000 106,043 94,942 89.5 11,101 10.5 7,786 7.3 3,315 3.1
1999 104,684 94,154 89.9 10,529 10.1 7,420 7.1 3,109 3.0
1998 103,309 91,121 88.2 12,188 11.8 8,353 8.1 3,835 3.7
All individuals (by food security status of household): 2
2018 323,005 285,778 88.5 37,227 11.5 24,577 7.6 12,650 3.9
2017 320,418 280,374 87.5 40,044 12.5 27,159 8.5 12,885 4.0
2016 319,029 277,825 87.1 41,204 12.9 26,556 8.3 14,648 4.6
2015 316,161 273,923 86.6 42,238 13.4 27,605 8.7 14,633 4.6
2014 313,305 265,170 84.6 48,135 15.4 30,922 9.9 17,213 5.5
Continued—
7
Table 1A
Households and individuals by food security status of household, 1998-2018—continued
Food insecure
Category With low With very low
and year Total1 Food secure All food security food security
All individuals (by food security status of household): 2
2013 310,853 261,775 84.2 49,078 15.8 31,974 10.3 17,104 5.5
2012 308,361 259,395 84.1 48,966 15.9 31,787 10.3 17,179 5.6
2011 305,893 255,773 83.6 50,120 16.4 33,232 10.9 16,888 5.5
2010 304,034 255,202 83.9 48,832 16.1 32,777 10.8 16,055 5.3
2009 301,750 251,588 83.4 50,162 16.6 32,499 10.8 17,663 5.9
2008 299,567 250,459 83.6 49,108 16.4 31,824 10.6 17,284 5.8
2007 297,042 260,813 87.8 36,229 12.2 24,287 8.2 11,942 4.0
2006 294,010 258,495 87.9 35,515 12.1 24,395 8.3 11,120 3.8
2005 291,501 256,373 87.9 35,128 12.1 24,349 8.4 10,779 3.7
2004 288,603 250,407 86.8 38,196 13.2 27,535 9.5 10,661 3.7
2003 286,410 250,155 87.3 36,255 12.7 26,622 9.3 9,633 3.4
2002 279,035 244,133 87.5 34,902 12.5 25,517 9.1 9,385 3.4
2001 276,661 243,019 87.8 33,642 12.2 24,628 8.9 9,014 3.3
2000 273,685 240,454 87.9 33,231 12.1 24,708 9.0 8,523 3.1
1999 270,318 239,304 88.5 31,015 11.5 23,237 8.6 7,779 2.9
1998 268,366 232,219 86.5 36,147 13.5 26,290 9.8 9,857 3.7
Adults (by food security status of household): 2
2018 249,443 223,390 89.6 26,053 10.4 16,576 6.6 9,477 3.8
2017 246,517 219,013 88.8 27,504 11.2 17,796 7.2 9,708 3.9
2016 245,200 216,934 88.5 28,266 11.5 17,498 7.1 10,768 4.4
2015 242,706 213,586 88.0 29,120 12.0 18,235 7.5 10,885 4.5
2014 239,937 207,125 86.3 32,812 13.7 20,425 8.5 12,387 5.2
2013 237,219 203,913 86.0 33,306 14.0 21,115 8.9 12,191 5.1
2012 234,730 201,662 85.9 33,068 14.1 20,708 8.8 12,359 5.3
2011 231,385 197,923 85.5 33,462 14.5 21,371 9.2 12,091 5.2
2010 229,129 196,505 85.8 32,624 14.2 21,357 9.3 11,267 4.9
2009 227,543 194,579 85.5 32,964 14.5 20,741 9.1 12,223 5.4
2008 225,461 193,026 85.6 32,435 14.4 20,320 9.0 12,115 5.4
2007 223,467 199,672 89.4 23,795 10.6 15,602 7.0 8,193 3.7
2006 220,423 197,536 89.6 22,887 10.4 15,193 6.9 7,694 3.5
2005 217,897 195,172 89.6 22,725 10.4 15,146 7.0 7,579 3.5
2004 215,564 191,236 88.7 24,328 11.3 16,946 7.9 7,382 3.4
2003 213,441 190,451 89.2 22,990 10.8 16,358 7.7 6,632 3.1
2002 206,493 184,718 89.5 21,775 10.5 15,486 7.5 6,289 3.0
2001 204,340 183,398 89.8 20,942 10.2 14,879 7.3 6,063 3.0
2000 201,922 181,586 89.9 20,336 10.1 14,763 7.3 5,573 2.8
1999 198,900 179,960 90.5 18,941 9.5 13,869 7.0 5,072 2.5
1998 197,084 174,964 88.8 22,120 11.2 15,632 7.9 6,488 3.3
1Totals exclude households for which food security status is unknown because household respondents did not give a valid response to any of the
questions in the food security scale. In 2018, these exclusions represented 378,000 households (0.3 percent of all households).
2The food security survey measures food security status at the household level. Not all individuals residing in food-insecure households were
directly affected by the households’ food insecurity. Similarly, not all individuals in households classified as having very low food security were
subject to the reductions in food intake and disruptions in eating patterns that characterize this condition. Young children, in particular, are often
protected from effects of the households’ food insecurity.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey
Food Security Supplement.
8
Figure 2
U.S. households with children by food security status of adults and children, 2018
Food-insecure households—13.9%
Food-insecure adults only—6.8%
Food-secure
households—86.1% Food-insecure
Low food security among children—6.5% children and
adults—7.1%
Very low food security among children—0.6%
The food security survey is designed to measure food security status at the household level. While it
is informative to examine the number of persons living in food-insecure households, these statistics
should be interpreted carefully. Within a food-insecure household, each household member may be
affected differently by the household’s food insecurity. Some members—particularly young children—
may experience only mild effects or none at all, while adults are more severely affected. It is more
precise, therefore, to describe these statistics as representing “persons living in food-insecure house-
holds” rather than as representing “food-insecure persons.” Similarly, “persons living in households
with very low food security” is a more precise description than “persons with very low food security.”
In 2018, 37.2 million people lived in food-insecure households (table 1A, bottom panel). They consti-
tuted 11.5 percent of the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population and included 26.1 million adults
and 11.2 million children (table 1B, bottom panel). About 6.0 million children (8.2 percent) lived in
households in which 1 or more child was food insecure. About 9.5 million adults (3.8 percent) lived in
households with very low food security (table 1A), and 540,000 children (0.7 percent of children) lived
in households with very low food security among children (table 1B, bottom panel).
Statistical Supplement tables S-2 and S-3 present estimates of the number of people and the
number of children in households in each food security status and household type (Coleman-
Jensen et al., 2019).
9
Table 1B
Households with children by food security status and children by food security status of household, 1998-2018
Category Food-secure Food-insecure Households with food- Households with very low
and year Total1 households households2 insecure children3 food security among children
Households with children:
2018 37,612 32,369 86.1 5,243 13.9 2,658 7.1 220 0.6
2017 37,942 31,975 84.3 5,967 15.7 2,926 7.7 250 0.7
2016 38,400 32,058 83.5 6,342 16.5 3,069 8.0 298 0.8
2015 38,978 32,519 83.4 6,459 16.6 3,022 7.8 274 0.7
2014 39,079 31,590 80.8 7,489 19.2 3,665 9.4 422 1.1
2013 38,486 30,978 80.5 7,508 19.5 3,814 9.9 360 0.9
2012 39,201 31,354 80.0 7,847 20.0 3,910 10.0 463 1.2
2011 38,803 30,814 79.4 7,989 20.6 3,862 10.0 374 1.0
2010 39,419 31,447 79.8 7,972 20.2 3,861 9.8 386 1.0
2009 39,525 31,114 78.7 8,411 21.3 4,208 10.6 469 1.2
2008 39,699 31,364 79.0 8,335 21.0 4,361 11.0 506 1.3
2007 39,390 33,160 84.2 6,230 15.8 3,273 8.3 323 0.8
2006 39,436 33,279 84.4 6,157 15.6 3,312 8.4 221 0.6
2005 39,601 33,404 84.4 6,197 15.6 3,244 8.2 270 0.7
2004 39,990 32,967 82.4 7,023 17.6 3,808 9.5 274 0.7
2003 40,286 33,575 83.3 6,711 16.7 3,606 9.0 207 0.5
2002 38,647 32,267 83.5 6,380 16.5 3,456 8.9 265 0.7
2001 38,330 32,141 83.9 6,189 16.1 3,225 8.4 211 0.6
2000 38,113 31,942 83.8 6,171 16.2 3,282 8.6 255 0.7
1999 37,884 32,290 85.2 5,594 14.8 3,089 8.2 219 0.6
1998 38,036 31,335 82.4 6,701 17.6 3,627 9.5 331 0.9
Children (by food security status of household):4
2018 73,562 62,388 84.8 11,174 15.2 5,999 8.2 540 0.7
2017 73,901 61,361 83.0 12,540 17.0 6,541 8.9 540 0.7
2016 73,829 60,891 82.5 12,938 17.5 6,519 8.8 703 1.0
2015 73,455 60,337 82.1 13,118 17.9 6,377 8.7 541 0.7
2014 73,368 58,045 79.1 15,323 20.9 7,949 10.8 914 1.2
2013 73,634 57,862 78.6 15,772 21.4 8,585 11.7 765 1.0
2012 73,631 57,733 78.4 15,898 21.6 8,290 11.3 977 1.3
2011 74,508 57,850 77.6 16,658 22.4 8,565 11.5 845 1.1
2010 74,905 58,697 78.4 16,208 21.6 8,458 11.3 976 1.3
2009 74,207 57,010 76.8 17,197 23.2 8,957 12.1 988 1.3
2008 74,106 57,433 77.5 16,673 22.5 9,098 12.3 1,077 1.5
2007 73,575 61,140 83.1 12,435 16.9 6,766 9.2 691 0.9
2006 73,587 60,959 82.8 12,628 17.2 7,065 9.6 430 0.6
2005 73,604 61,201 83.1 12,403 16.9 6,718 9.1 606 0.8
2004 73,039 59,171 81.0 13,868 19.0 7,823 10.7 545 0.7
2003 72,969 59,704 81.8 13,265 18.2 7,388 10.1 420 0.6
2002 72,542 59,415 81.9 13,127 18.1 7,397 10.2 567 0.8
2001 72,321 59,620 82.4 12,701 17.6 6,866 9.5 467 0.6
2000 71,763 58,867 82.0 12,896 18.0 7,018 9.8 562 0.8
1999 71,418 59,344 83.1 12,074 16.9 6,996 9.8 511 0.7
1998 71,282 57,255 80.3 14,027 19.7 7,840 11.0 716 1.0
1Totals exclude households for which food security status is unknown because they did not give a valid response to any of the questions in the
food security scale. In 2018, these exclusions represented 152,000 households with children (0.4 percent of all households with children).
Children are age 0-17.
2Food-insecure households are those with low or very low food security among adults or children or both.
3In some food-insecure households with children, only adults were food insecure. Households with food-insecure children are those with low or
very low food security among children.
4The food security survey measures food security status at the household level. Not all children residing in food-insecure households were directly
affected by the households’ food insecurity. Similarly, not all children in households classified as having very low food security among children
were subject to the reductions in food intake and disruptions in eating patterns that characterize this condition. Young children, in particular, are
often protected from effects of the households’ food insecurity.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey
Food Security Supplement.
10
When interpreting food security statistics in this report, bear in mind that households were classi-
fied as having low or very low food security based on their experience of the conditions indicated
in the module at any time during the previous 12 months. The prevalence of these conditions on
any given day is far below the corresponding annual prevalence. For example, the prevalence of
very low food security during the 30 days prior to the survey is 2.4 percent (table S-4) and the
prevalence on an average day during the 30-day period prior to the December 2018 survey is an
estimated 0.6-0.8 percent of households (0.8 million to 1.0 million households; see box, “When
Food Insecurity Occurs in U.S. Households, It Is Usually Recurrent But Not Constant,” on page
11).12 Children, along with adults, suffered very low food security in an estimated 36,000 to
47,000 households (0.09 to 0.12 percent of all U.S. households with children) on an average day
during the same period.
From 2017 to 2018, there was a statistically significant decline in the prevalence of food insecurity
from 11.8 percent to 11.1 percent (fig. 3, table 1a). This continues 6 years of declining food insecu-
rity from a high of 14.9 percent in 2011, and is the first year that food insecurity returned to the 11.1
percent pre-recession level of 2007. Year-to year declines in food insecurity from 2016 (12.3 percent)
to 2017 and from 2014 (14.0 percent) to 2015 (12.7 percent) were statistically significant. Some year-
to-year changes were not statistically significant; that is, the changes were within the range that could
have resulted from sampling variation. The cumulative decline from 2011 (14.9 percent) to 2014 (14.0
percent) was statistically significant. In the previous decade, food insecurity had increased from 10.7
percent in 2001 to 11.9 percent in 2004, declined to about 11 percent in 2005-07, then increased signifi-
cantly in 2008 (to 14.6 percent), and remained essentially unchanged (that is, the difference was not
statistically significant) at that level in 2009 (14.7 percent) and 2010 (14.5 percent).
The prevalence of very low food security in 2018 (4.3 percent) was not significantly different from
2017 (fig. 3, table 1a). There were statistically significant declines in very low food security from 4.9
percent in 2016 to 4.5 percent in 2017 and from 5.6 percent in 2014 to 5.0 percent in 2015. Before
that, the prevalence of very low food security was essentially unchanged from 2011 (5.7 percent)
through 2014. The prevalence of very low food security was also 5.7 percent in 2008 and 2009. Prior
to 2008, the prevalence of very low food security had increased from 3.3 percent in 2001 to 3.9
percent in 2004, and remained essentially unchanged through 2007 (4.1 percent).
From 2017 to 2018, there was a statistically significant decline in the prevalence of food insecurity
in households with children from 15.7 percent to 13.9 percent (fig. 4, table 1b). Food insecurity in
households with children in 2018 was lower than in any year back to 1998. Households with food
insecurity among children in 2018 (7.1 percent) was not significantly different from the prevalence
in 2017 (7.7 percent) or 2015 (7.8 percent). Households with food insecurity among children was also
at the lowest level compared with any year back to 1998. Households with very low food security
among children was essentially unchanged from 2017 (0.7 percent) to 2018 (0.6 percent). Households
with very low food security among children in 2018 was also not statistically significantly different
from the prevalence in 2016 or 2015, or in 1999 through 2007. Households with very low food secu-
rity among children was significantly lower in 2018 than in any year from 2008 through 2014.
12Average daily prevalence of the various behaviors, experiences, and conditions characterizing very low food security
is calculated based on the proportion of households reporting the condition at any time during the previous 30 days and the
average number of days in which the condition occurred. The average daily prevalence for each condition is calculated as the
product of the 30-day prevalence and the average number of days experienced divided by 30. The ratio of daily prevalence
to monthly prevalence of the various indicator conditions provides the basis for approximating the average daily prevalence
of very low food security during the reference 30-day period. The daily rate of very low food security is expressed as a range
whose lower and upper bounds are based on the minimum and maximum ratio of daily prevalence to 30-day prevalence. See
table S-9 in the online Statistical Supplement (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2019).
11
When Food Insecurity Occurs in U.S. Households,
It Is Usually Recurrent but Not Constant
When households experience very low food security in • Most households that had very low food security at
the United States, the resulting instances of reduced food some time during a month experienced the associated
intake and disrupted eating patterns are usually occasional conditions in 1 to 7 days of the month. The average
or episodic, but not usually constant. The food security daily prevalence of very low food security during the
measurement methods used in this report are designed 30-day period ending in mid-December 2018 was
to register these occasional or episodic occurrences. The between 0.8 million and 1.0 million households (0.6 to
questions used to assess households’ food security status 0.8 percent of all households)—about 14 to 18 percent
ask whether a condition, experience, or behavior occurred of the annual prevalence.
at any time in the past 12 months, and households can
be classified as having very low food security based on a • The daily prevalence of very low food security among
single, severe episode during the year. Readers should be children during the 30-day period ending in mid-
mindful of this when interpreting food-insecurity statistics. December 2018 was probably between 36,000 and
Analyses of additional information collected in the food 47,000 households (0.09 to 0.12 percent of households
security survey on how frequently various food-insecure with children)—about 16 to 21 percent of the annual
conditions occurred during the year, whether they occurred prevalence.
during the 30 days prior to the survey, and, if so, in how
• The omission of homeless families and individuals
many days provide insight into the frequency and duration
from these daily statistics biases the statistics down-
of food insecurity in U.S. households. These analyses reveal
ward, and the bias may be substantial relative to the
that in 2018:
estimates, especially for the most severe conditions.
• About one-fourth of U.S. households with very low food
(Statistical Supplement tables S-7 to S-9 (Coleman-Jensen et
security at any time during the year experienced the
al., 2019) provide information on how often conditions indi-
associated conditions rarely or occasionally—in only 1
cating food insecurity occurred, as reported by respondents
or 2 months of the year. For three-fourths of households,
to the December 2018 Food Security Supplement. See Nord
the conditions were recurrent, experienced in 3 or more
et al. (2000) for more information about the frequency of
months of the year.
food insecurity. See Ryu and Bartfeld (2012) and Wilde et
• For about one-fourth of food-insecure households and al. (2010) for more information about longer term patterns
one-third of those with very low food security, occur- of food insecurity.)
rence of the associated conditions was frequent or
Prevalence of food insecurity and very low food
chronic. That is, the conditions occurred often, or in security, by reference period (2018)
almost every month.
• On average, households that were food insecure at some
time during the year were food insecure in 7 months 11.1
Food insecurity
during the year. During the 30-day period ending in
mid-December 2018, 7.7 million households (5.9 percent
of all households) were food insecure—about 54 percent
of the number that were food insecure at any time 5.9
during the year (see Statistical Supplement table S-4, 4.3
Coleman-Jensen et al., 2019).
2.4
• Similarly, households with very low food security at 0.6 to 0.8
some time during the year experienced the associated NA
Any time Any time during 30 Estimated
conditions, on average, in 7 months during the year. during year days prior to survey average daily
During the 30-day period ending in mid-December
2018, 3.1 million households (2.4 percent of all house- NA = Estimated average daily occurrence of food insecurity is not
available because the survey did not collect information on the num-
holds) had very low food security—about 56 percent of
ber of days that less severe food-insecure conditions occurred.
the number with very low food security at some time
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from
during the year (see Statistical Supplement table S-4).
U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau,
12
Figure 3
Trends in the prevalence of food insecurity and very low food security in U.S. households,
2001-2018
16
14
Food insecurity
(including low and very low food security)
12
10
4
2
0
2001 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement.
Figure 4
Trends in the prevalence of food insecurity in households with children, 2001-2018
Percent of households with children

22
20
18
Food insecurity in households with children
16
14
12
Food insecurity among children
10
4
Very low food security among children
2
0
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement.
13
Prevalence of Food Insecurity by Selected Household
Characteristics
The prevalence of food insecurity varied considerably in 2018 among households with different
demographic and economic characteristics (table 2). Differences in food security across demo-
graphic and geographic groups reflect, in part, differences in income across those groups; though no
adjustment is made for income in the statistics presented in this report, food insecurity was strongly
associated with income. For example, 35.3 percent of households with annual incomes below the
official poverty line (household income-to-poverty ratio under 1.00) were food insecure, compared
with just 5.4 percent of those with incomes at or above 185 percent of the poverty line (Table S-1 in
the Statistical Supplement (Coleman-Jensen at al., 2019) shows food insecurity by selected house-
hold characteristics for households with annual income below 130 percent of the poverty line).13
Rates of food insecurity were below the national average of 11.1 percent for married-couple fami-
lies with children (8.3 percent), households with more than one adult and no children (7.5 percent),
households with elderly persons (7.5 percent), and the elderly living alone (8.9 percent).14 The preva-
lence of food insecurity was also below the national average for households headed by White, non-
Hispanic adults (8.1 percent).
Rates of food insecurity were higher than the national average in 2018 for the following groups:
• All households with children (13.9 percent)15
• Households with children under age 6 (14.3 percent)
• Households with children headed by a single woman (27.8 percent) or a single man (15.9
percent)16 and other households with children (21.1 percent)
• Women living alone (14.2 percent) and men living alone (12.5 percent)
• Households with Black, non-Hispanic (21.2 percent) and Hispanic (16.2 percent) heads
of household
• Households with incomes below 185 percent of the poverty threshold (29.1 percent).
13The Federal poverty line was $25,465 for a family of four (two adults and two children) in 2018.
14“Elderly” in this report refers to persons age 65 and older.
15About half of the difference in food insecurity between households with and without children results from a difference
in the measures applied to the two types of households. Responses to questions about children as well as adults are considered
in assessing the food security status of households with children, but for both types of households, a total of three indications
of food insecurity is required for classification as food insecure. Even with the child-referenced questions omitted from the
scale, however, in 2018, 11.9 percent of households with children would be classified as food insecure (that is, as having food
insecurity among adults), compared with 9.9 percent for households without children. Comparisons of very low food security
are not biased substantially by this measurement issue because a higher threshold is applied to households with children, con-
sistent with the larger number of questions taken into consideration (Nord and Coleman-Jensen, 2014). See Coleman-Jensen,
Rabbitt, and Gregory (2017) for a discussion of a comparable classification method for households with and without children.
16Some households with children headed by a single woman or a single man as classified for these analyses included
other adults, who may have been parents, siblings, cohabiting partners, adult children, other relatives of the reference person,
or unrelated roomers or boarders.
14
Table 2
Households by food security status and selected household characteristics, 2018
Food insecure
With low With very low
Category Total1 Food secure All food security food security
All households 129,245 114,934 88.9 14,311 11.1 8,730 6.8 5,581 4.3
Household composition:
With children < 18 yrs 37,612 32,369 86.1 5,243 13.9 3,750 9.9 1,493 4.0
With children < 6 yrs 16,306 13,967 85.7 2,339 14.3 1,720 10.5 619 3.8
Married-couple families 24,598 22,558 91.7 2,040 8.3 1,633 6.6 407 1.7
Female head, no spouse 9,349 6,753 72.2 2,596 27.8 1,715 18.4 881 9.4
Male head, no spouse 3,238 2,722 84.1 516 15.9 346 10.6 170 5.3
Other household with child2 427 337 78.9 90 21.1 NA NA NA NA
With no children < 18 yrs 91,633 82,565 90.1 9,068 9.9 4,980 5.4 4,088 4.5
More than one adult 54,274 50,222 92.5 4,052 7.5 2,413 4.5 1,639 3.0
Women living alone 20,225 17,352 85.8 2,873 14.2 1,552 7.7 1,321 6.5
Men living alone 17,134 14,991 87.5 2,143 12.5 1,015 5.9 1,128 6.6
With elderly 39,125 36,191 92.5 2,934 7.5 1,918 4.9 1,016 2.6
Elderly living alone 14,988 13,652 91.1 1,336 8.9 824 5.5 512 3.4
Race/ethnicity of households:
White, non-Hispanic 84,975 78,106 91.9 6,869 8.1 4,109 4.9 2,760 3.2
Black, non-Hispanic 16,613 13,087 78.8 3,526 21.2 2,021 12.1 1,505 9.1
Hispanic3 18,101 15,164 83.8 2,937 16.2 2,018 11.1 919 5.1
Other, non-Hispanic 9,556 8,577 89.8 979 10.2 582 6.0 397 4.2
Household income-to-poverty ratio:

Under 1.00 12,140 7,855 64.7 4,285 35.3 2,356 19.4 1,929 15.9
Under 1.30 17,061 11,419 66.9 5,642 33.1 3,186 18.7 2,456 14.4
Under 1.85 26,836 19,033 70.9 7,803 29.1 4,584 17.1 3,219 12.0
1.85 and over 70,795 66,964 94.6 3,831 5.4 2,517 3.5 1,314 1.9
Income unknown 31,614 28,937 91.5 2,677 8.5 1,629 5.2 1,048 3.3
Area of residence:4
Inside metropolitan area 111,051 99,053 89.2 11,998 10.8 7,299 6.6 4,699 4.2
In principal cities5 37,881 32,877 86.8 5,004 13.2 2,984 7.9 2,020 5.3
Not in principal cities 55,847 50,855 91.1 4,992 8.9 3,083 5.5 1,909 3.4
Outside metropolitan area 18,194 15,882 87.3 2,312 12.7 1,430 7.9 882 4.8
Census geographic region:

Northeast 22,517 20,227 89.8 2,290 10.2 1,341 6.0 949 4.2
Midwest 27,791 24,781 89.2 3,010 10.8 1,914 6.9 1,096 3.9
South 49,814 43,829 88.0 5,985 12.0 3,582 7.2 2,403 4.8
West 29,123 26,098 89.6 3,025 10.4 1,892 6.5 1,133 3.9
NA = Not reported; fewer than 10 households in the survey with this characteristic had very low food security.
1Totals exclude households for which food security status is unknown because household respondents did not give a valid response to any of the
questions in the food security scale. In 2018, these exclusions represented 378,000 households (0.3 percent of all households)..
2Households with children in complex living arrangements, e.g., children of other relatives or unrelated roommate or boarder.
3Hispanics may be of any race.
4Metropolitan area residence is based on 2013 Office of Management and Budget delineation. Prevalence rates by area of residence are compa-
rable with those for 2014 and later but are not precisely comparable with those of earlier years.
5Households within incorporated areas of the largest cities in each metropolitan area. Residence inside or outside of principal cities is not identi-
fied for about 16 percent of households in metropolitan statistical areas.

15
Across residential classifications, food insecurity was higher in principal cities of metropolitan areas (13.2
percent) and nonmetropolitan (rural) areas (12.7 percent) than in suburbs/exurbs and other metropolitan
areas outside principal cities (8.9 percent).17 Compared with the national average, food insecurity was
higher in principal cities and lower in metropolitan areas outside principal cities, but not significantly
different from the national average in nonmetropolitan areas. Regionally, the prevalence of food inse-
curity in the Northeast (10.2 percent) was significantly below the U.S. average, while the prevalence in
the South (12.0 percent) was significantly above the U.S. average. The prevalence of food insecurity was
significantly higher in the South than in each of the other three regions (table 2).
Statistics in table 2 can also be used to calculate the share that each demographic group contributes
to the population of food-insecure households. Among all food-insecure households in 2018, 36.6
percent were households with children, 18.1 percent were female-headed households with children,
and 14.3 percent were married-couple households with children.18 About 21 percent of all food-
insecure households included elderly adults. Low-income households with reported incomes below
185 percent of the poverty threshold made up the majority of food-insecure households, 54.5 percent.
Households with reported incomes at or above 185 percent of poverty made up about 27 percent of
all food-insecure households in 2018.
The prevalence of very low food security in various types of households followed a pattern similar
to that observed for food insecurity (table 2). Percentages were lower than the 2018 national average
of 4.3 percent for married couples with children (1.7 percent); multiple-adult households with
no children (3.0 percent); households with elderly persons (2.6 percent); elderly living alone (3.4
percent); households headed by White, non-Hispanics (3.2 percent); households with incomes at or
above 185 percent of the poverty line (1.9 percent); and households in suburbs and exurbs outside
principal cities within metropolitan areas (3.4 percent).
The prevalence of very low food security was significantly higher than the national average (4.3
percent) for the following groups:
• Households with children headed by a single woman (9.4 percent)
• Women living alone (6.5 percent) and men living alone (6.6 percent)
• Households headed by Black, non-Hispanics (9.1 percent) and Hispanics (5.1 percent)
• Households with incomes below 185 percent of the poverty line (12.0 percent)
• Households located in principal cities (5.3 percent)
• Households in the South (4.8 percent).
17Revised metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) and principal cities within them were delineated by the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget in 2013, based on revised standards developed by the U.S. Census Bureau in collaboration with other Fed-
eral agencies. The revised delineations were implemented beginning with the 2014 Current Population Survey Food Security
Supplement. Food security prevalence statistics by area of residence for 2014 and later are comparable, but are not precisely
comparable with corresponding statistics from earlier years. Principal cities include the incorporated areas of the largest city
in each MSA and other cities in the MSA that meet specified criteria based on population size and commuting patterns.
18For example, the share of food-insecure households that are female-headed households with children can be calculated
as (2,596/14,311) = 0.181. Similarly, the share of food-insecure households that are married-couple households with children
is (2,040/14,311) = 0.143.
16
In 7.1 percent of households with children, one or more child was food insecure in 2018 (table 3).19
Among household categories, the percentage of households with food-insecure children was lower in
married-couple households (3.5 percent); White, non-Hispanic households (5.1 percent); households
headed by non-Hispanics of other, or multiple, races (4.8 percent); households with incomes at or
above 185 percent of the poverty line (2.9 percent); and metropolitan households located in suburbs
and exurbs outside of principal cities (5.4 percent). The percentage of households with food-insecure
children was higher for female-headed households (15.9 percent); Black, non-Hispanic households
(14.8 percent); households with incomes below 185 percent of the poverty line (16.5 percent); and
households in principal cities (9.1 percent).
Compared with the prevalence for all households with children (0.6 percent), very low food security
among children was less prevalent in married-couple families (0.2 percent); in households headed by
White, non-Hispanic adults (0.3 percent); and in households with incomes at or above 185 percent of
the poverty line (0.3 percent). Very low food security among children was more prevalent in house-
holds headed by a single woman (1.7 percent); households headed by Black, non-Hispanic adults (1.4
percent); households with incomes below 185 percent of the poverty line (1.4 percent); and house-
holds located in principal cities (1.1 percent).
The prevalence of food insecurity declined from 2017 for a number of population subgroups (fig
5).20 Food insecurity declined significantly for all households with children (from 15.7 percent in
2017 to 13.9 percent in 2018), households with children under age 6 (16.4 percent to 14.3 percent),
married couples with children (9.5 percent to 8.3 percent), and households with children headed by
single women (30.3 percent to 27.8 percent) and single men (from 19.7 percent to 15.9 percent). Food
insecurity also declined in White, non-Hispanic households (8.8 percent to 8.1 percent), Hispanic
households (18.0 percent to 16.2 percent), households with incomes below 185 percent of poverty
(30.8 percent to 29.1 percent), metropolitan households (11.5 percent to 10.8 percent), and house-
holds in the South (13.4 percent to 12.0 percent). There were no statistically significant increases in
food insecurity between 2017 and 2018.
The prevalence of very low food security (fig. 6) declined significantly from 2017 to 2018 among
households with elderly (from 3.1 percent in 2017 to 2.6 percent in 2018); White, non-Hispanic
households (3.6 percent to 3.2 percent); and households in the Midwest (4.8 percent to 3.9 percent).
There was one statistically significant increase in very low food security from 2017 to 2018—very
low food security in the Northeast increased from 3.3 percent to 4.2 percent.
19Households are classified as having food insecurity among children if they report two or more food-insecure conditions
among children in response to questions 11-18 in box on page 4.

20Estimates of food insecurity and very low food security for 2017 were published in Household Food Security in the
United States in 2017 (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2018).
17
Table 3
Prevalence of food security and food insecurity in households with children by selected household
characteristics, 2018
Households with
Households with very low
Food-secure Food-insecure food-insecure food security
Category Total1 households households2 children3 among children
All households with children 37,612 32,369 86.1 5,243 13.9 2,658 7.1 220 0.6
With children < 6 yrs 16,306 13,967 85.7 2,339 14.3 1,091 6.7 63 0.4
Married-couple families 24,598 22,559 91.7 2,039 8.3 873 3.5 46 0.2
Female head, no spouse 9,349 6,752 72.2 2,597 27.8 1,483 15.9 162 1.7
Male head, no spouse 3,238 2,721 84.0 517 16.0 269 8.3 NA NA
Other household with child4 427 337 78.9 90 21.1 NA NA NA NA
White, non-Hispanic 21,059 18,863 89.6 2,196 10.4 1,067 5.1 60 0.3
Black, non-Hispanic 5,136 3,840 74.8 1,296 25.2 759 14.8 72 1.4
Hispanic5 8,108 6,745 83.2 1,363 16.8 673 8.3 77 0.9
Other, non-Hispanic 3,310 2,922 88.3 388 11.7 159 4.8 NA NA

Under 1.00 4,426 2,729 61.7 1,697 38.3 969 21.9 94 2.1
Under 1.30 6,911 4,534 65.6 2,377 34.4 1,331 19.3 132 1.9
Under 1.85 9,940 6,831 68.7 3,109 31.3 1,637 16.5 143 1.4
1.85 and over 19,820 18,531 93.5 1,289 6.5 571 2.9 52 0.3
Income unknown 7,852 7,006 89.2 846 10.8 449 5.7 NA NA
Area of residence: 6
Inside metropolitan area 32,534 28,131 86.5 4,403 13.5 2,253 6.9 205 0.6
In principal cities7 10,281 8,543 83.1 1,738 16.9 938 9.1 113 1.1
Not in principal cities 17,562 15,642 89.1 1,920 10.9 950 5.4 73 0.4
Outside metropolitan area 5,079 4,239 83.5 840 16.5 405 8.0 NA NA

Northeast 6,057 5,264 86.9 793 13.1 423 7.0 NA NA
Midwest 7,901 6,751 85.4 1,150 14.6 554 7.0 52 0.7
South 14,561 12,361 84.9 2,200 15.1 1,121 7.7 67 0.5
West 9,093 7,994 87.9 1,099 12.1 560 6.2 68 0.7
NA = Not reported; fewer than 10 households in the survey with this characteristic had very low food security among children.
1Totals exclude households for which food security status is unknown because they did not give a valid response to any of the questions in the
food security scale. In 2018, these exclusions represented 152,000 households with children (0.4 percent of all households with children).
2Food-insecure households are those with low or very low food security among adults or children or both.
3In some food-insecure households with children, only adults were food insecure. Households with food-insecure children are those with low or
very low food security among children.

6Metropolitan area residence is based on 2013 Office of Management and Budget delineation. Prevalence rates by area of residence are compa-
rable with those for 2014 and later but are not precisely comparable with those of earlier years.
7Households within incorporated areas of the largest cities in each metropolitan area. Residence inside or outside of principal cities is not identi-
fied for about 14 percent of households with children in metropolitan statistical areas.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 Current Population
18
Prevalence of Food Insecurity by State
The prevalence of food insecurity varies considerably by State. In addition to household-level char-
acteristics such as income, employment, and household structure, the prevalence of food insecurity is
also affected by State-level characteristics, such as average wages, cost of housing, unemployment, and
State-level policies that affect access to unemployment insurance, the State Earned Income Tax Credit,
and nutrition assistance programs (Bartfeld et al., 2006; Bartfeld and Men, 2017). State-level estimates
were obtained by averaging 3 years of data (2016-18) in order to have a larger sample size in each State
to provide more reliable statistics (more precise estimates). Estimated prevalence rates of food insecurity
during this 3-year period ranged from 7.8 percent in New Hampshire to 16.8 percent in New Mexico;
estimated prevalence rates of very low food security ranged from 2.8 percent in New Hampshire to 6.8
percent in Alabama and Louisiana.21
The margin of error for State food insecurity rates should be considered when interpreting these
statistics, especially when comparing prevalence rates across States. The margin of error reflects
sampling variation—the uncertainty associated with estimates that are based on information from
a limited number of households in each State.22 The margins of error presented in table 4 indicate
the range (above or below the estimated prevalence rate) that is 90 percent likely to include the true
prevalence rate. For example, considering the margins of error, it is not certain that the prevalence
of very low food security was higher in Alabama and Louisiana than in the States with the next 14
highest prevalence rates.
Taking into account margins of error of the State and U.S. estimates, the prevalence of food insecu-
rity was higher (i.e., statistically significantly higher) than the national average in 12 States (AL, AR,
IN, KY, LA, MS, NC, NM, OH, OK, TX, and WV) and lower than the national average in 16 States
(CA, CO, HI, IA, ID, MA, MN, MT, ND, NH, NJ, NY, VA, VT, WA, and WI).23 In the remaining
22 States and the District of Columbia, differences from the national average were not statistically
significant. The prevalence of very low food security was higher than the national average in 10
States (AL, AR, KS, LA, MS, NM, OH, OK, TX, and WV), lower than the national average in 11
States (CA, HI, ID, MA, MN, ND, NH, NJ, NY, VT, and WI), and not significantly different from
the national average in 29 States and the District of Columbia.
State-level rates of food insecurity and very low food security for 2016-18 are compared with
2013-15 and 2006-08 averages in table 5. Prevalence rates for 2013-15 are from Household Food
Security in the United States in 2015 (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2016). The 2006-08 rates are from
Household Food Security in the United States, 2008 (Nord et al., 2009) and are presented as a base-
line to assess changes in State-level food security conditions over the past decade.24
21A map of the States showing the prevalence of food insecurity for 2016-18 is available for download on the ERS website.
22Margin of error is calculated as 1.645 times the standard error of the estimated prevalence rate. Standard errors were esti-
mated using balanced repeated replication (BRR) methods based on replicate weights for the CPS Food Security Supplement.
23Standard error of difference assumes that there is no correlation between national and individual State estimates.
24Prevalence rates for 1996-98 reported in Prevalence of Food Insecurity and Hunger, by State, 1996-1998 (Nord et al.,
1999) are not directly comparable with the rates reported here because of differences in screening procedures in the CPS
Food Security Supplements from 1995 to 1998. Statistics for 1996-98, adjusted to be comparable with those for recent years,
are presented in Statistical Supplement to Food Security in the United States in 2010, table S-4 (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2011).
Standard errors of State-level estimates for 2006-08 were calculated using jackknife replication methods with “month-in-
sample” groups considered as separate independent samples (see Nord et al., 1999).
19
Figure 5
Prevalence of food insecurity, 2017 and 2018
All households
* 2017
2018
With children < 18 yrs *
With children < 6 yrs
*
Married-couple families
*
Female head, no spouse
*
Male head, no spouse
*
With no children < 18 yrs
More than one adult
Women living alone
Men living alone
With elderly
Elderly living alone
White, non-Hispanic
*
Black, non-Hispanic
Hispanic
*
Other, non-Hispanic
Under 1.00
Under 1.30
Under 1.85
*
1.85 and over
Area of residence:
Inside metropolitan area
*
In principal cities
Not in principal cities
Outside metropolitan area
Northeast
Midwest
South
*
West
0 10 20 30 40
*Change from 2017 to 2018 was statistically significant with 90-percent confidence (t > 1.645).
2017 and 2018 Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement.
20
Figure 6
Prevalence of very low food security, 2017 and 2018
All households
Household composition: 2017
With children < 18 yrs 2018
With children < 6 yrs
Married-couple families
Female head, no spouse
Male head, no spouse
With no children < 18 yrs
More than one adult
Women living alone
Men living alone
With elderly
*
Elderly living alone
White, non-Hispanic *
Black, non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Other, non-Hispanic
Under 1.00
Under 1.30
Under 1.85
1.85 and over
Area of residence:
Inside metropolitan area
In principal cities
Not in principal cities
Outside metropolitan area
Northeast *
Midwest *
South
West
0 5 10 15 20
*Change from 2017 to 2018 was statistically significant with 90-percent confidence (t > 1.645).
2017 and 2018 Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement
21
There were no statistically significant increases in the State-level prevalence of food insecurity from
2013-15 to 2016-18, while food insecurity declined significantly in 22 States (AK, AL, AR, AZ, CA,
CO, GA, ID, LA, MO, MS, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH, OR, TN, TX, WA, and WI) and the District
of Columbia (table 5). During the same period, the prevalence of very low food security declined
significantly in 13 States (CA, CT, FL, GA, ID, MA, MO, MT, NH, NJ, NY, OR, and VT), with no
statistically significant increases.
There was a statistically significant percentage-point increase in the prevalence of food insecurity
from 2006-08 to 2016-18 in six States, with statistically significant declines in seven States and the
District of Columbia. The prevalence of very low food security increased significantly from 2006-08
to 2016-18 in four States, with statistically significant declines in four States. Changes not marked as
statistically significant (*) in table 5 were within ranges that could have resulted from sampling vari-
ation (that is, a non-zero difference between sample estimates, based on the households that happen
to be chosen for the sample, which is consistent with no actual change in food security in the State’s
general population).
22
Table 4
Prevalence of household food insecurity and very low food security by State, average 2016-18
Food insecurity
Number of households (low or very low food security) Very low food security
Average
States 2016-181 Interviewed Prevalence Margin of error2 Prevalence Margin of error2
Percentage Percentage
Number Number Percent points Percent points
U.S. 127,639,000 115,576 11.7 0.20 4.6 0.14
AK 267,000 1,351 10.8 1.72 4.3 1.00
AL 1,977,000 2,199 14.7 * 1.86 6.8 * 1.34
AR 1,235,000 2,012 15.1 * 2.14 6.1 * 1.31
AZ 2,699,000 1,906 12.4 1.37 5.1 0.99
CA 14,011,000 9,015 10.6 * 0.70 3.9 * 0.41
CO 2,377,000 1,269 9.1 * 1.43 3.6 1.10
CT 1,426,000 1,045 12.4 2.13 4.2 1.35
DC 321,000 2,496 10.6 1.19 4.5 0.93
DE 377,000 1,238 10.5 1.87 4.5 1.20
FL 8,679,000 4,822 11.7 0.92 4.2 0.62
GA 4,023,000 2,693 11.3 1.62 3.8 0.77
HI 488,000 1,469 8.0 * 1.43 3.2 * 0.79
IA 1,323,000 1,451 9.2 * 1.47 3.9 1.10
ID 639,000 1,904 9.8 * 1.58 3.3 * 0.78
IL 4,995,000 3,275 10.7 1.07 4.4 0.68
IN 2,708,000 1,843 13.5 * 1.57 4.8 0.98
KS 1,160,000 1,576 13.8 2.39 6.2 * 1.58
KY 1,763,000 1,549 14.7 * 1.82 5.7 1.37
LA 1,859,000 2,697 15.8 * 1.29 6.8 * 0.94
MA 2,776,000 2,317 9.3 * 1.24 3.2 * 0.64
MD 2,322,000 1,367 11.1 1.85 5.2 1.36
ME 568,000 1,173 13.6 2.47 5.9 1.45
MI 4,080,000 2,556 12.9 1.53 5.3 1.02
MN 2,247,000 1,565 8.6 * 2.05 3.3 * 1.02
MO 2,494,000 1,807 12.0 1.96 4.4 1.05
MS 1,180,000 2,475 15.9 * 1.79 6.3 * 1.11
MT 449,000 2,394 10.3 * 1.34 3.9 0.81
NC 4,203,000 2,575 13.9 * 1.46 5.5 1.05
ND 319,000 1,852 8.8 * 1.25 3.6 * 0.82
NE 775,000 1,404 11.4 1.33 4.7 1.21
NH 537,000 1,622 7.8 * 1.55 2.8 * 0.84
NJ 3,411,000 2,142 8.5 * 1.26 3.1 * 0.69
NM 836,000 2,209 16.8 * 1.84 5.8 * 1.01
NV 1,131,000 1,433 12.9 1.82 5.4 1.27
NY 7,870,000 4,421 10.5 * 0.95 3.8 * 0.53
OH 4,728,000 3,230 13.2 * 1.14 5.8 * 0.84
OK 1,539,000 1,696 15.6 * 2.08 6.1 * 1.29
OR 1,691,000 1,740 11.1 1.62 4.8 1.16
PA 5,283,000 3,036 11.1 1.28 4.2 0.74
RI 434,000 1,089 11.0 2.01 4.7 1.32
SC 2,099,000 1,823 11.0 2.18 4.0 1.00
SD 352,000 1,449 10.9 1.80 4.8 1.23
TN 2,709,000 2,357 12.4 1.46 5.2 0.75
TX 10,384,000 6,053 14.0 * 1.05 5.4 * 0.71
UT 1,041,000 1,663 9.8 2.30 3.2 1.57
VA 3,260,000 2,178 10.1 * 1.43 4.8 0.96
VT 264,000 1,704 9.6 * 1.38 3.3 * 0.81
WA 2,960,000 2,210 10.3 * 1.29 4.0 0.87
WI 2,377,000 1,875 8.9 * 1.15 3.4 * 0.73
WV 758,000 2,567 15.7 * 2.27 5.9 * 1.01
WY 234,000 1,784 12.6 1.44 5.0 1.07
*Difference from U.S. average was statistically significant with 90-percent confidence (t > 1.645). Standard error of differences assumes that there
is no correlation between national and individual State estimates.
1Totals exclude households for which food security status is unknown because household respondents did not give a valid response to any of
the questions in the food security scale. These exclusions represented about 0.3 percent of all households in 2016, 0.3 percent in 2017, and 0.3
percent in 2018.
2Margin of error with 90-percent confidence (1.645 times the standard error of the estimated prevalence rate). Standard errors were estimated
using balanced repeated replication (BRR) methods based on replicate weights for the CPS Food Security Supplement.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2016, 2017, and 2018 Current
Population Survey Food Security Supplements.
23
Table 5
Change in prevalence of household food insecurity and very low food security by State, 2016-18
(average), 2013-15 (average), and 2006-08 (average)1
Food insecurity (low or very low food security) Very low food security
Change Change Change Change
2013-15 2006-08 2013-15 2006-08
Average Average Average to to Average Average Average to to
States 2016-18 2013-15 2006-08 2016-18 2016-18 2016-18 2013-15 2006-08 2016-18 2016-18
————— Percent ————— Percentage points ————— Percent ————— Percentage points
U.S. 11.7 13.7 12.2 -2.0 * -.5 * 4.6 5.4 4.6 -0.8 * 0.0
AK 10.8 13.3 11.6 -2.5 * -.8 4.3 4.4 4.4 -.1 -.1
AL 14.7 17.6 13.3 -2.9 * 1.4 6.8 7.3 5.4 -.5 1.4
AR 15.1 19.2 15.9 -4.1 * -.8 6.1 7.4 5.6 -1.3 .5
AZ 12.4 14.9 13.2 -2.5 * -.8 5.1 6.0 4.9 -.9 .2
CA 10.6 12.6 12.0 -2.0 * -1.4 * 3.9 4.5 4.3 -.6 * -.4
CO 9.1 12.1 11.6 -3.0 * -2.5 * 3.6 5.1 5.0 -1.5 -1.4 *
CT 12.4 13.1 11.0 -.7 1.4 4.2 6.3 4.1 -2.1 * .1
DC 10.6 13.2 12.4 -2.6 * -1.8 * 4.5 4.8 4.2 -.3 .3
DE 10.5 11.9 9.4 -1.4 1.1 4.5 3.2 3.7 1.3 .8
FL 11.7 12.7 12.2 -1.0 -.5 4.2 5.4 4.9 -1.2 * -.7
GA 11.3 14.9 14.2 -3.6 * -2.9 * 3.8 5.6 5.4 -1.8 * -1.6 *
HI 8.0 9.7 9.1 -1.7 -1.1 3.2 3.0 3.0 .2 .2
IA 9.2 10.6 11.6 -1.4 -2.4 * 3.9 4.5 4.8 -.6 -.9
ID 9.8 13.8 11.4 -4.0 * -1.6 3.3 5.1 3.9 -1.8 * -.6
IL 10.7 11.1 11.1 -.4 -.4 4.4 4.3 4.1 .1 .3
IN 13.5 14.8 11.2 -1.3 2.3 * 4.8 6.1 4.3 -1.3 .5
KS 13.8 14.6 13.8 -.8 .0 6.2 5.5 4.8 .7 1.4
KY 14.7 17.6 12.6 -2.9 2.1 5.7 7.3 4.4 -1.6 1.3
LA 15.8 18.4 11.0 -2.6 * 4.8 * 6.8 7.7 3.7 -.9 3.1 *
MA 9.3 9.7 8.3 -.4 1.0 3.2 4.5 3.8 -1.3 * -.6
MD 11.1 10.7 9.6 .4 1.5 5.2 3.8 3.4 1.4 1.8 *
ME 13.6 15.8 13.7 -2.2 -.1 5.9 7.4 6.4 -1.5 -.5
MI 12.9 14.9 12.0 -2.0 .9 5.3 6.4 4.4 -1.1 .9
MN 8.6 9.9 10.3 -1.3 -1.7 3.3 3.8 4.1 -.5 -.8
MO 12.0 15.2 14.0 -3.2 * -2.0 4.4 6.7 5.8 -2.3 * -1.4
MS 15.9 20.8 17.4 -4.9 * -1.5 6.3 7.9 7.4 -1.6 -1.1
MT 10.3 12.2 10.9 -1.9 -.6 3.9 5.6 4.4 -1.7 * -.5
NC 13.9 15.9 13.7 -2.0 * .2 5.5 6.2 4.4 -.7 1.1
ND 8.8 8.5 6.9 .3 1.9 * 3.6 2.9 2.6 .7 1.0
NE 11.4 14.8 10.4 -3.4 * 1.0 4.7 5.6 4.0 -.9 .7
NH 7.8 10.1 8.5 -2.3 * -.7 2.8 4.3 3.1 -1.5 * -.3
NJ 8.5 11.1 10.3 -2.6 * -1.8 * 3.1 4.7 3.4 -1.6 * -.3
NM 16.8 14.4 14.1 2.4 2.7 * 5.8 5.7 4.6 .1 1.2
NV 12.9 14.2 12.4 -1.3 .5 5.4 5.6 4.6 -.2 .8
NY 10.5 14.1 11.3 -3.6 * -.8 3.8 4.9 4.3 -1.1 * -.5
OH 13.2 16.1 13.3 -2.9 * -.1 5.8 6.6 5.2 -.8 .6
OK 15.6 15.5 14.0 .1 1.6 6.1 6.4 5.9 -.3 .2
OR 11.1 16.1 13.1 -5.0 * -2.0 4.8 6.6 6.6 -1.8 * -1.8 *
PA 11.1 12.4 11.2 -1.3 -.1 4.2 4.8 4.2 -.6 .0
RI 11.0 11.8 11.7 -.8 -.7 4.7 5.0 4.2 -.3 .5
SC 11.0 13.2 13.1 -2.2 -2.1 4.0 4.6 5.2 -.6 -1.2
SD 10.9 11.5 10.3 -.6 .6 4.8 4.5 4.1 .3 .7
TN 12.4 15.1 13.5 -2.7 * -1.1 5.2 6.0 4.6 -.8 .6
TX 14.0 15.4 16.3 -1.4 * -2.3 * 5.4 6.0 5.7 -.6 -.3
UT 9.8 11.9 11.2 -2.1 -1.4 3.2 4.5 4.5 -1.3 -1.3
VA 10.1 9.8 8.6 .3 1.5 4.8 4.3 3.3 .5 1.5 *
VT 9.6 11.4 12.1 -1.8 -2.5 * 3.3 5.1 5.7 -1.8 * -2.4 *
WA 10.3 12.9 11.1 -2.6 * -.8 4.0 4.8 4.3 -.8 -.3
WI 8.9 11.3 10.1 -2.4 * -1.2 3.4 4.7 3.7 -1.3 -.3
WV 15.7 15.0 12.0 .7 3.7 * 5.9 6.2 4.5 -.3 1.4
WY 12.6 13.2 9.2 -.6 3.4 * 5.0 5.3 2.9 -.3 2.1 *
*Change was statistically significant with 90-percent confidence (t > 1.645).
1Percentages exclude households for which food security status is unknown because household respondents did not give a valid
response to any of the questions in the food security scale.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population
Survey Food Security Supplements.
24
Household Spending on Food
Food insecurity is a condition that arises from lack of money and other resources to acquire food.
In most households, the majority of food consumed by household members is purchased, either
from supermarkets or grocery stores, to be prepared and eaten at home; some food also comes
from cafeterias, restaurants, or vending machines to be eaten outside the home. The amount of
money a household spends on food thus indicates how adequately the household is meeting its food
needs.25When a household reduces food spending below some minimum level, such as USDA’s
Thrifty Food Plan, because of constrained resources, disrupted eating patterns and reduced food
intake may result. This section provides information on how much households spent on food, as
reported in the December 2018 Food Security Supplement.
Methods
The household food expenditure statistics in this report are based on usual weekly spending for
food, as reported by respondents after reflecting on the household’s actual food spending during the
previous week. Respondents were first asked to report the amounts of money their households had
spent on food in the week prior to the interview, including any purchases made with SNAP benefits
(Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly called food stamps) at:
• supermarkets and grocery stores;
• stores other than supermarkets and grocery stores, such as meat markets, produce stands,
bakeries, warehouse clubs, and convenience stores;
• restaurants, fast-food places, cafeterias, and vending machines; and
• “...any other kind of place.”26
Total spending for food, based on responses to this series of questions, was verified with the respon-
dent, and the respondent was then asked how much the household usually spent on food during a
week.27 ERS analyses have shown that usual food expenditures estimated from data collected by
this method were consistent with estimates from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES)—the
25Food spending is only an indirect indicator of food consumption. It understates food consumption in households that re-
ceive food from in-kind programs, such as the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs, WIC, meal programs
for children in childcare and for the elderly, and private charitable organizations. Purchases with SNAP benefits, however, are
counted as food spending in the CPS Food Security Supplement. Food spending also understates food consumption in house-
holds that acquire a substantial part of their food supply through gardening, hunting, or fishing, as well as in households that
obtain groceries from friends or relatives or eat more meals at friends’ or relatives’ homes than they provide to friends or rela-
tives. Food spending also understates food consumption in geographical areas with relatively low food prices and overstates
consumption in areas with relatively high food prices.
26For spending in the first two categories of stores, respondents were also asked how much of the amount was for “non-
food items, such as pet food, paper products, alcohol, detergents, or cleaning supplies.” These amounts are subtracted from
total spending at each of these stores to arrive at spending for food.
27Beginning with the 2015 Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement, food-spending amounts are categorized
in public-use data. Categorizing the dollar amounts reduces the risk of disclosure and is now standard for data collected by
the U.S. Census Bureau. ERS analysis suggests this change has little effect on the estimates of median food spending reported
in the annual food security reports. The tables presented in this section are based on the categorical food-spending data and
are comparable to the 2016 estimates but are not precisely comparable with estimates published in prior annual food security
reports. Changes in food spending from 2017 described in the text are based on comparable estimates of 2017 categorical
food-spending data published in Coleman-Jensen et al. (2018).
25
principal source of data on U.S. household expenditures for goods and services (Oliveira and Rose,
1996; Nord, 2009b).
Usual food spending was adjusted for household size and composition in two ways. First, we divided
each household’s usual weekly food expenditure by the number of household members, yielding
the “usual weekly food spending per person” for that household. The second adjustment accounts
more precisely for the different food needs of households by comparing each household’s usual food
spending to the estimated cost of the Thrifty Food Plan for that household in December 2018.28
USDA’s Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) serves as a national standard for a nutritious, minimal-cost diet.
It represents a set of “market baskets” of food that people in specific age and gender categories
could consume at home to maintain a healthful diet that meets current dietary standards, taking into
account the food consumption patterns of U.S. households (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center
for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, 2007).29 Each household’s reported usual weekly food spending
was divided by the household-specific cost of the TFP, based on the age- and gender-specific cost of
the TFP for each household member and the number of persons in the household (U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, 2019).30
The medians of each of the two food-spending measures (spending per person per week and total
spending relative to the cost of the TFP) were estimated at the national level and for households
in various categories. Medians are reported rather than averages (means) because medians are not
unduly affected by the few unexpectedly high values of usual food spending that are believed to be
reporting or data entry errors. Thus, the median better reflects what a typical household spent.
About 7.3 percent of households interviewed in the CPS Food Security Supplement did not respond
to the food-spending questions (or reported zero usual food spending) and were excluded from the
analysis. As a result, the total number of households represented in tables 6 and 7 is smaller than in
tables 1 and 2, and food-spending estimates may not be fully representative of all households in the
United States.31
Food Expenditures by Selected Household Characteristics

In 2018, the typical U.S. household spent $50.00 per person each week for food (table 6). Median
household food spending relative to the cost of the TFP—which adjusts for food price inflation and
adjusts more precisely for the food needs of persons in different age-gender categories—was 1.27,
up from 1.24 in 2017 (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2018). That is, in 2018, the typical household spent 27
percent more on food than the cost of the TFP for that household.
28The cost of the TFP is revised each month to account for inflation in food prices. For this report, TFP costs are estimated
by ERS separately for Alaska and Hawaii, using adjustment factors calculated from USDA’s TFP costs for those States for
the second half of 2018. USDA’s TFP costs for Alaska and Hawaii are available on USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and
Promotion website.
29The TFP, in addition to its use as a research tool, is used as a basis for setting the maximum SNAP benefit amounts
(U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, 2007).
30The cost of a TFP for a household is calculated under the assumption that all food purchased by household members
is shared.
31Households that were unable or unwilling to report food spending were less likely to be food insecure than those that
did report food spending (8.2 percent compared with 12.1 percent). Food spending may, therefore, be slightly underestimated
from these data.
26
Table 6
Weekly household food spending per person and relative to the household cost of the
Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), 2018
Median weekly food spending
Number of Relative to cost
Category households1 Per person of TFP
1,000 Dollars Ratio
All households 118,469 50.00 1.27
With children < 18 yrs 35,304 40.00 1.15
At least one child < 6 yrs 15,493 37.50 1.15
Married-couple families 23,189 41.67 1.17
Female head, no spouse 8,695 40.00 1.09
Male head, no spouse 3,002 41.67 1.12
Other household with child2 417 40.00 1.08
With no children < 18 yrs 83,166 60.00 1.33
More than one adult 49,822 50.00 1.24
Women living alone 17,980 60.00 1.35
Men living alone 15,363 80.00 1.56
With elderly 34,829 50.00 1.19
Elderly living alone 12,922 60.00 1.33
White, non-Hispanic 78,445 55.00 1.33
Black, non-Hispanic 14,923 50.00 1.11
Hispanic3 16,501 46.67 1.13
Other, non-Hispanic 8,601 50.00 1.23

Under 1.00 11,287 40.00 1.06
Under 1.30 15,921 40.00 1.04
Under 1.85 25,223 40.00 1.07
1.85 and over 67,428 60.00 1.42
Income unknown 25,818 50.00 1.19
Area of residence:4
Inside metropolitan area 101,576 50.00 1.30
In principal cities5 34,321 55.00 1.32
Not in principal cities 51,257 50.00 1.31
Outside metropolitan area 16,894 50.00 1.13
Northeast 20,274 55.00 1.33
Midwest 25,644 50.00 1.19
South 45,667 50.00 1.23
West 26,884 53.33 1.33
1Totals exclude households that did not answer the questions about spending on food or reported zero usual food spending.
These exclusions represented 8.6 percent of all households.
4Metropolitan area residence is based on 2013 Office of Management and Budget delineation.
5Households within incorporated areas of the largest cities in each metropolitan area. Residence inside or outside of principal
cities is not identified for about 15 percent of households in metropolitan statistical areas.
Note: These estimates are based on categorical food spending data rather than on continuous data that were used in 2014
and earlier years. Beginning with the 2015 Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement, food spending amounts
are categorized in public-use data. ERS analysis suggests that this change has little effect on the estimates of median food
spending reported here.
27
Table 7
Weekly household food spending per person and relative to the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan
(TFP) by food security status, 2018
Median weekly food spending
Number of Relative to cost
Category households1 Per person of TFP
1,000 Dollars Ratio
All households 118,469 50.00 1.27
Food security status:
Food-secure households 104,787 50.00 1.31
Food-insecure households 13,467 43.33 1.08
Households with low food security 8,225 41.67 1.09
Households with very low food security 5,242 46.67 1.08
1Totalfor all households excludes households that did not answer the questions about spending on food or reported zero
usual spending for food. These represented 8.6 percent of all households. Totals in the bottom section also exclude house-
holds that did not answer any of the questions in the food security scale.
Note: These estimates are based on categorical food spending data rather than on continuous data that were used in 2014
and earlier years. Beginning with the 2015 Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement, food spending amounts
are categorized in public-use data. ERS analysis suggests that this change has little effect on the estimates of median food
spending reported here.
Households with children under age 18 generally spent less for food, relative to the household cost
of the TFP, than those without children. The typical household with children spent 15 percent more
than the cost of the TFP on food, while the typical household with no children spent 33 percent
more. Median household food expenditures relative to the cost of the TFP were lower for households
with children headed by single women (1.09) than for married couples with children (1.17). Median
food expenditures relative to the cost of the TFP were highest for men living alone (1.56).
Median food expenditures relative to the cost of the TFP were lower (than the national average) for
Black non-Hispanic (1.11) and Hispanic households (1.13) than for White non-Hispanic households
(1.33). This pattern is consistent with the lower average incomes and higher prevalence rates of food
insecurity for these racial and ethnic minorities.
As expected, households with higher incomes spent more money on food than did lower income
households.32 The typical household with income below the poverty line spent about 6 percent more
than the cost of the TFP, while the typical household with income at or above 185 percent of the
poverty line spent 42 percent more than the cost of the TFP.
Median food spending relative to the cost of the TFP was lower for households in nonmetropolitan
areas (1.13) than for those inside metropolitan statistical areas (1.30). Regionally, median spending
on food relative to the cost of the TFP was lowest in the Midwest (1.19), followed by the South
(1.23), and highest in the West (1.33) and Northeast (1.33).
32However, food spending does not rise proportionately with income, so high-income households actually spend a smaller
proportion of their income on food than low-income households.
28
Food Expenditures and Household Food Security
Food-secure households typically spent more on food than did food-insecure households. Median
food spending relative to the cost of the TFP was 1.31 among food-secure households in 2018,
compared with 1.08 among food-insecure households (table 7). Thus, taking into account estimated
food need, the median food-secure household spent 21 percent more for food than the median food-
insecure household (estimated as 1.31/1.08=1.21).33
33The pattern of higher food spending among food-secure households compared with food-insecure households was also
found in USDA’s National Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey (FoodAPS) data (Tiehen et al., 2017).
29
Federal Food and Nutrition Assistance Programs and
Food Security
Households with limited resources use a variety of methods to help meet their food needs. Some
participate in Federal food and nutrition assistance programs or obtain food from emergency providers
in their communities to supplement the food they purchase. Households that turn to Federal and
community food and nutrition assistance programs typically do so because they are having difficulty
meeting their food needs. The use of such programs by low-income households provides insight into
the extent of these households’ difficulties in obtaining enough food. The relationship between food
security status and use of food and nutrition assistance programs also provides insight into the ways
low-income households cope with difficulties in acquiring adequate food.
This section presents information about the food security status of households that participated
in the three largest Federal food and nutrition assistance programs: SNAP, the National School
Lunch Program, and WIC (see box, “Federal Food and Nutrition Assistance Programs,” p. 31). It
also provides information about the extent to which food-insecure households participated in these
programs. Total participation in the Federal food and nutrition assistance programs, participation
rates of eligible households in those programs, and characteristics of participants in the programs are
not described in this report. Extensive information on those topics is available from USDA’s Food
and Nutrition Service (FNS).34
Statistical Supplement tables S-11 to S-16 provide information on food spending by participants
and low-income nonparticipants in selected Federal and community food and nutrition assistance
programs and about the extent to which households obtained assistance from community food
pantries and emergency kitchens (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2019).
Statistical Supplement tables S-11 to S-16 provide information on food spending by participants
and low-income nonparticipants in selected Federal and community food and nutrition assistance
programs and about the extent to which households obtained assistance from community food
pantries and emergency kitchens (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2019).
Methods
The December 2018 CPS Food Security Supplement included questions about the use of Federal food
and nutrition assistance programs. All households with reported annual incomes below 185 percent of
the Federal poverty threshold were asked these questions. To minimize respondent burden, households
with annual incomes above that range were not asked the questions unless they indicated some level of
difficulty in meeting their food needs on the first of the two preliminary screener questions asked of
all households (listed in footnote 7, p. 3). Therefore, these analyses were restricted to households with
annual incomes below 185 percent of the poverty line because most households with incomes above
this range were not asked whether they participated in these programs.
34Additional research findings on the operation and effectiveness of these programs are available from the ERS website.
30
Federal Food and Nutrition Assistance Programs
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) administers 15
domestic food and nutrition assistance programs. The three largest programs are:
• The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly the Food Stamp Program.
The program provides monthly benefits to eligible low-income households to purchase food
items at SNAP-authorized retailers. SNAP is available to all individuals who meet financial
and nonfinancial eligibility criteria. In an average month of fiscal year 2018 (October 1, 2017,
through September 30, 2018), SNAP provided benefits to 40.4 million people in the United
States (about 12 percent of individuals). The average benefit was about $126 per person per
month, and Federal expenditures for the program were $65 billion that year.
• The National School Lunch Program. The program operates in over 100,000 public and
nonprofit private schools and residential childcare institutions. All meals served under the
program receive Federal subsidies, and free or reduced-price lunches are available to low-
income students. In fiscal year 2018, the program provided lunches to an average of 29.7
million children each school day. About two-thirds (68 percent) of the lunches served in
2018 were free, and an additional 6 percent were provided at reduced prices.
• The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). The
program is a federally funded preventive nutrition program that provides grants to States to
support distribution of supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education for
low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and nonbreastfeeding postpartum women; for infants in
low-income families; and for children younger than age 5 in low-income families and who
are found to be at nutritional risk. Most State WIC agencies provide vouchers that partici-
pants use to acquire supplemental food packages at authorized food stores. In fiscal year
2018, WIC served 6.9 million participants per month at an average monthly cost for food
(after rebates to WIC from manufacturers) of about $41 per person.
(FNS Program data accessed from FNS website on May 8, 2019; for more information, see
Oliveira, 2019.)
Three questions are used to determine whether respondents participated in SNAP in the 30 days
before the survey interview. The questions analyzed in this section regarding SNAP participation
are:
• During the past 12 months, since December of last year, did anyone in this household get
SNAP or food stamp benefits?35
Households that responded affirmatively were then asked:
• In which months of 2018 were SNAP or food stamp benefits received?
35The Food Stamp Program was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in October 2008.
Both names were mentioned in the survey question, as well as the State’s name for the program in States that used a
different name.
31
Households that reported participation in November, but not December, were then asked:
• On what date in November did your household receive SNAP or food stamp benefits?
Information from the three questions was used to identify households that received SNAP benefits in
the 30 days prior to the survey, which is from mid-November to mid-December 2018.36
Questions about the National School Lunch Program and WIC are also analyzed here. These
questions are:
• During the past 30 days, did any children in the household (between 5 and 18 years old)
receive free or reduced-price lunches at school? (Only households with children between the
ages of 5 and 18 were asked this question.)
• During the past 30 days, did any women or children in this household get food through the
WIC program? (Only households with a child under age 5 or a woman age 15-45 were asked
this question.)
Prevalence rates of food security, food insecurity, and very low food security were calculated
for households reporting use of each food and nutrition assistance program and for comparison
groups of nonparticipating households with incomes and household compositions similar to those
of food assistance recipients. Statistics for participating households excluded households with
annual incomes above the ranges specified for the comparison groups.37 The proportions of food-
insecure households participating in each of the three largest Federal food and nutrition assistance
programs—SNAP, the National School Lunch Program, and WIC—were calculated, as well as the
proportion that participated in any of the three programs.
Food Security of Households That Received Food and Nutrition

Assistance
The relationship between food security and the use of food and nutrition assistance programs is
complex. Households that report using food and nutrition assistance programs in a one-time survey
can either be more food secure or less food secure than low-income households not using those
programs. Since the programs provide food and other resources to reduce the severity of food
insecurity, households are expected to be more food secure after receiving program benefits than
they were before. On the other hand, it is the more food-insecure households—those having greater
difficulty meeting their food needs—that seek assistance from the programs. Data confirm this self-
selection into nutrition assistance programs.38 In 2018, an estimated 47.5 percent of households that
36TheCPS household does not always match the SNAP unit. In some households, only some members are eligible for
SNAP (Czajka et al., 2012; Scherpf et al., 2015).
37Some program participants reported annual incomes that were higher than 12 times the program eligibility criteria,
which are based on monthly income (relative to poverty). They may have had monthly incomes below the monthly eligi-
bility threshold during part of the year, or subfamilies within the household may have had incomes low enough to have
been eligible.
38This “self-selection” effect is evident in the association between food security and food program participation observed
in the food security survey. Participating households were less food secure than similar nonparticipating households. Re-
search that uses methods to account for this self-targeting is required to assess the extent to which the programs improve food
security (see Gregory et al., 2015, for a review of this literature and these methods; also see Mabli et al., 2013; Nord, 2013;
Nord, 2012; Nord and Prell, 2011; Ratcliffe and McKernan, 2011; Nord and Golla, 2009; Yen et al., 2008; Wilde and Nord,
2005; Gundersen and Oliveira, 2001; Gundersen and Gruber, 2001; Nelson et al., 1998). Overall, these studies find that SNAP
improves food security.
32
received SNAP benefits were food insecure, as were 39.5 percent of households that received free or
reduced-price school lunches and 36.9 percent of those that received WIC benefits (table 8).
The prevalence of very low food security among households participating in SNAP was more than
double that of nonparticipating households in the same low-income range (21.7 percent versus 9.4
percent). For households that received free or reduced-price school lunches, the prevalence of very
low food security was nearly triple that of nonparticipating households with school-age children in the
same income range (13.0 percent versus 4.5 percent). Very low food security was also more prevalent
among WIC recipient households (12.3 percent) than similar non-WIC households (6.6 percent).
A possible complicating factor in interpreting table 8 is that food insecurity was measured over a
12-month period, while program participation is measured over a 30-day period. An episode of food
insecurity may have occurred at a different time during the year than the use of a specific food and
nutrition assistance program. A similar tabulation using a 30-day measure of food insecurity largely
overcomes this potential problem because measured food insecurity and reported use of food and
nutrition assistance programs both are referenced to the previous 30 days. That tabulation shows
patterns of food insecurity and the use of food and nutrition assistance programs that are similar to
those using the 12-month food insecurity measure in table 8, although 30-day food insecurity preva-
lence rates were lower than the corresponding 12-month rates (see Statistical Supplement table S-15,
Coleman-Jensen et al., 2019).
Participation in Federal Food and Nutrition Assistance Programs

by Food-Insecure Households
About 56 percent of food-insecure households reported receiving assistance from one or more of the
three largest Federal food and nutrition assistance programs during the month prior to the December
2018 food security survey (table 9). SNAP provided assistance to 41.2 percent of food-insecure
households, children in 28.2 percent of food-insecure households received free or reduced-price
school lunches, and women or children in 8.1 percent of food-insecure households received WIC
food vouchers.39 An estimated 56.5 percent of households classified as having very low food secu-
rity reported participating in one or more of the three largest Federal food and nutrition assistance
programs, with the largest share (45.7 percent) participating in SNAP.40
39These statistics may be biased downward. It is known from comparisons between household survey data and adminis-
trative records that food program participation is underreported by household survey respondents, including those in the CPS
(Meyer and George, 2011; Parker, 2011; Meyer et al., 2009; Meyer et al., 2015; Meyer and Mittag, 2019). This is probably
true for food-insecure households as well, although the extent of underreporting by these households is not known. Statis-
tics are based on the subsample of households with annual incomes below 185 percent of the poverty line. Not all of these
households were eligible for certain programs. (For example, many households without pregnant women or children and with
incomes above 130 percent of poverty would not have been eligible for any of the programs.)
40The statistics in table 9 were also calculated for households that were food insecure during the 30-day period prior to the
survey. In principle, that analysis is preferable because food security status and use of programs are more certainly contempo-
raneous than when food insecurity is assessed over a 12-month period. However, the results differed only slightly from those
in table 9 and are not presented in a separate table. In 2018, an estimated 58.5 percent of households that were food insecure
during the 30-day period prior to the survey participated in SNAP, free or reduced-price school lunch, or WIC during that
same period. Among households that experienced very low food security in the 30-day period prior to the survey, 59.7 percent
participated in SNAP, free or reduced-price school lunch, or WIC during that same period.
33
Table 8
Percentage of households by food security status and participation in selected Federal food and nutrition
assistance programs, 2018
Food insecure
Food With low food With very low
Category secure All security food security
Percent
Income less than 130 percent of poverty line:
Received SNAP1 benefits previous 12 months 52.5 47.5 25.8 21.7
Received SNAP benefits all 12 months 54.2 45.8 24.6 21.2
Received SNAP benefits 1 to 11 months 48.4 51.6 28.6 23.0
Did not receive SNAP benefits previous 12 months 76.7 23.3 13.9 9.4
Income less than 185 percent of poverty line; school-age children in household:
Received free or reduced-price school lunch previous 30 days 60.5 39.5 26.5 13.0
Did not receive free or reduced-price school lunch previous 30 days 80.4 19.6 15.1 4.5
Income less than 185 percent of poverty line; children under age 5 in household:
Received WIC2 previous 30 days 63.1 36.9 24.5 12.3
Did not receive WIC previous 30 days 74.9 25.1 18.5 6.6
1SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly the Food Stamp Program.
2WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 Current
Population Survey Food Security Supplement.
Table 9
Participation of food-insecure households in selected Federal food and nutrition assistance programs, 2018
Share of food-insecure households Share of households with very low food
that participated in the program security that participated in the program
Program during the previous 30 days1,2 during the previous 30 days1,2
Percent
SNAP3 41.2 45.7
Free or reduced-price school lunch 28.2 22.5
WIC4 8.1 6.4
Any of the three programs 56.0 56.5
None of the three programs 44.0 43.5
1Analysis is restricted to households with annual incomes less than 185 percent of the poverty line because most households with incomes above
that range were not asked whether they participated in food assistance programs.
2These statistics understate the extent of food and nutrition program participation because program participation is underreported by household
survey respondents, see footnote 39.

3SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly the Food Stamp Program.
4WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 Current Population
34
References
Anderson, S.A. (ed.). 1990. “Core Indicators of Nutritional State for Difficult-To-Sample
Populations,” Journal of Nutrition 120(11S):1557-1600. Report by the Life Sciences Research
Office, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, for the American Institute of
Nutrition.
Andrews, Margaret, Gary Bickel, and Steven Carlson. 1998. “Household Food Security in the
United States in 1995: Results From the Food Security Measurement Project,” Family Economics
and Nutrition Review 11(1&2):17-28, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy
and Promotion.
Bartfeld, Judi, Rachel Dunifon, Mark Nord, and Steven Carlson. 2006. What Factors Account for
State-to-State Differences in Food Security? EIB-20, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service.
Bartfeld, Judi, and Fei Men. 2017. “Food Insecurity Among Households with Children: The Role of
the State Economic and Policy Context,” Social Service Review 91(4):691-732.
Bickel, G., M. Andrews, and S. Carlson. 1998. “The Magnitude of Hunger: A New National Measure
of Food Security,” Topics in Clinical Nutrition 13(4):15-30.
Bickel, G., M. Nord, C. Price, W.L. Hamilton, and J.T. Cook. 2000. Guide to Measuring Household
Food Security, Revised 2000. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.
Carlson, S.J., M.S. Andrews, and G.W. Bickel. 1999. “Measuring Food Insecurity and Hunger in the
United States: Development of a National Benchmark Measure and Prevalence Estimates,” The
Journal of Nutrition 129(2):510S-516S.
Czajka, John L., Anne Peterson, Brittany McGill, Betsy Thorn, and Catharine Warner-Griffin.
2012. The Extent and Nature of Underreporting of SNAP Participation in Federal Surveys. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.
Coleman-Jensen, Alisha. 2015. “Commemorating 20 Years of U.S. Food Security Measurement,”

Amber Waves 13(9), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Coleman-Jensen, Alisha, William McFall, and Mark Nord. 2013. Food Insecurity in Households
With Children: Prevalence, Severity, and Household Characteristics, 2010-11. EIB-113, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Coleman-Jensen, Alisha, Matthew P. Rabbitt, and Christian Gregory. 2017. Examining an

“Experimental” Food Security Status Classification Method for Households with Children.
TB-1945, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Coleman-Jensen, Alisha, Matthew P. Rabbitt, Christian Gregory, and Anita Singh. 2016. Household
Food Security in the United States in 2015. ERR-215, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service.
35
Coleman-Jensen, Alisha, Matthew P. Rabbitt, Christian Gregory, and Anita Singh. 2018. Household
Food Security in the United States in 2017. ERR-256, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service.
Coleman-Jensen, Alisha, Matthew P. Rabbitt, Christian Gregory, and Anita Singh. 2019. Statistical
Supplement to Household Food Security in the United States in 2018. AP-81, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Fram, Maryah Stella, Edward A. Frongillo, Sonya J. Jones, Roger C. Williams, Michael P. Burke,
Kendra P. DeLoach, and Christine E. Blake. 2011. “Children are Aware of Food Insecurity and
Take Responsibility for Managing Food Resources,” The Journal of Nutrition 141(6):1114-19.
Gregory, Christian, and Alisha Coleman-Jensen. 2017. Food Insecurity, Chronic Disease, and
Health Among Working-Age Adults. ERR-235, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service.
Gregory, Christian A., Matthew P. Rabbitt, and David C. Ribar. 2015. “The Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program and Food Insecurity,” in SNAP Matters: How Food Stamps Affect Health
and Well-Being. Judith Bartfeld, Craig Gundersen, Timothy M. Smeeding, and James P. Ziliak
(eds.), pp. 74-106. Stanford University Press.
Gundersen, Craig, and Joseph Gruber. 2001. “The Dynamic Determinants of Food Insecurity,” in
Second Food Security Measurement and Research Conference, Volume II: Papers, FANRR-11-2,
Margaret Andrews and Mark Prell (eds.), pp. 92-110. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service.
Gundersen, Craig, and Victor Oliveira. 2001. “The Food Stamp Program and Food Insufficiency,”
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(4):875-87.
Hamilton, W.L., J.T. Cook, W.W. Thompson, L.F. Buron, E.A. Frongillo, Jr., C.M. Olson, and C.A.
Wehler. 1997a. Household Food Security in the United States in 1995: Summary Report of the
Food Security Measurement Project, prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and
Consumer Service.
Hamilton, W.L., J.T. Cook, W.W. Thompson, L.F. Buron, E.A. Frongillo, Jr., C.M. Olson, and
C.A. Wehler. 1997b. Household Food Security in the United States in 1995: Technical
Report, prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Service.
Hanson, Karla, and L. Connor. 2014. “Food Insecurity and Dietary Quality in US Adults and
Children: A Systematic Review.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 100: 684-692.
Mabli, James, Jim Ohls, Lisa Dragoset, Laura Castner, and Betsy Santos. 2013. Measuring
the Effect of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Participation on Food
Security, prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.
Meyer, Bruce D., and Robert M. George. 2011. “Errors in Survey Reporting and Imputation
and their Effects on Estimates of Food Stamp Program Participation.” Working Paper,
The Harris School, University of Chicago.
36
Meyer, Bruce D., and Nikolas Mittag. 2019. “Misreporting of Government Transfers: How
Important are Survey Design and Geography?” Southern Economic Journal. 86(1):
230-53.
Meyer, Bruce D., Wallace K.C. Mok, and James X. Sullivan. 2009. “The Under-Reporting
of Transfers in Household Surveys: Its Nature and Consequences.” National Bureau of
Economic Research Working Paper No. 15181. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of
Economic Research.
Meyer, Bruce D., Wallace K.C. Mok, and James X. Sullivan. 2015. “Household Surveys in
Crisis,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 29(4): 199-226.
National Research Council. 2006. Food Insecurity and Hunger in the United States: An Assessment
of the Measure. Committee on National Statistics, Panel to Review the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s Measurement of Food Insecurity and Hunger, Gooloo S. Wunderlich and Janet L.
Norwood (eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Nelson, K., M. Brown, and N. Lurie. 1998. “Hunger in an Adult Patient Population,” Journal of the
American Medical Association 279(15):1211-14.
Nord, Mark. 2009a. Food Insecurity in Households With Children: Prevalence, Severity, and
Household Characteristic. EIB-56, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Nord, Mark. 2009b. Food Spending Declined and Food Insecurity Increased for Middle-Income
and Low-Income Households from 2000 to 2007. EIB-61, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service.
Nord, Mark. 2012. “How Much Does the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Alleviate
Food Insecurity? Evidence from Recent Programme Leavers,” Public Health Nutrition 15(5):
811-17.
Nord, Mark. 2013. Effects of the Decline in the Real Value of SNAP Benefits From 2009 to 2011.
ERR-151, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Nord, Mark, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson. 2009. Household Food Security in the United
States, 2008. ERR-83, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Nord, Mark, Margaret Andrews, and F. Joshua Winicki. 2000. “Frequency and Duration of
Food Insecurity and Hunger in U.S. Households.” Paper presented at the Fourth International
Conference on Dietary Assessment Methods, Tucson, AZ, Sept. 17-20.
Nord, Mark, and Gary Bickel. 2002. Measuring Children’s Food Security in U.S. Households,
1995-9. FANRR-25, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Nord, Mark, and Alisha Coleman-Jensen. 2014. “Improving Food Security Classification of
Households With Children,” Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition 9(3):318-33.
Nord, Mark, and Anne Marie Golla. 2009. Does SNAP Decrease Food Insecurity? Untangling the
Self-Selection Effect. ERR-85, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
37
Nord, Mark, and Karla Hanson. 2012. “Adult Caregiver Reports of Adolescents’ Food Security
do Not Agree Well with Adolescents’ Own Reports,” Journal of Hunger and Environmental
Nutrition 7(4):363-80.
Nord, Mark, and Heather Hopwood. 2007. “Recent Advances Provide Improved Tools for Measuring
Children’s Food Security,” Journal of Nutrition 137(3): 533-36.
Nord, M., K. Jemison, and G.W. Bickel. 1999. Prevalence of Food Insecurity and Hunger by State,
1996-1998. FANRR-2, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Nord, Mark, and Linda S. Kantor. 2006. “Seasonal Variation in Food Insecurity Is Associated
with Heating and Cooling Costs Among Low-Income Elderly Americans,” Journal of Nutrition
136(11):2939-44.
Nord, Mark, and Mark Prell. 2011. Food Security Improved Following the 2009 Increase in SNAP
Benefits. ERR-116, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Oliveira, Victor. 2019. The Food Assistance Landscape: FY 2018 Annual Report. EIB-207, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Oliveira, Victor, and Donald Rose. 1996. Food Expenditure Estimates From the 1995 CPS Food
Security Supplement: How Do They Compare With the Consumer Expenditure Survey? Staff
Report No. AGES9617, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Parker, Julie. 2011. “SNAP Misreporting on the CPS: Does it Affect Poverty Estimates?” Social,
Economic, and Housing Statistics Division Working Paper No. 2012-1, U.S. Department of
Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau.
Rabbitt, Matthew P., and Alisha Coleman-Jensen. 2017. “Rasch Analysis of the Standardized
Spanish Translation of the U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module,” Journal of Economic
and Social Measurement 42(2):171-197.
Ratcliffe, Caroline, and Signe-Mary McKernan. 2011. “How Much Does the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program Reduce Food Insecurity?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics
93(4):1082-98.
Ryu, Jeong-Hee, and Judith S. Bartfeld. 2012. “Household Food Insecurity During Childhood and
Subsequent Health Status: The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten Cohort,”
American Journal of Public Health 102(11): e50-e55.
Scherpf, Erik, Constance Newman, and Mark Prell. 2015. Improving the Assessment of SNAP
Targeting Using Administrative Records. ERR-186, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service.
Tiehen, Laura, Constance Newman, and John Kirlin. 2017. The Food Spending Patterns of SNAP
Households: Findings From the National Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey Data. EIB-176,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. 2019. Official USDA
Food Plans: Cost of Food at Home at Four Levels, U.S. Average, December 2018. January.
38
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. 2007. The Thrifty Food
Plan, 2006. CNPP-19.
Wilde, Parke, and Mark Nord. 2005. “The Effect of Food Stamps on Food Security: A Panel Data
Approach,” Review of Agricultural Economics 27(3):425-32.
Wilde, Parke E., Robert E. Zagar, and Mark Nord. 2010. “In Longitudinal Data from the Survey of
Program Dynamics, 16.9% of the U.S. Population Was Exposed to Household Food Insecurity in
a 5-Year Period,” Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition 5(3):380-98.
Yen, Steven T., Margaret Andrews, Zhuo Chen, and David B. Eastwood. 2008. “Food Stamp
Program Participation and Food Insecurity: An Instrumental Variables Approach,” American
Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(1):117-32.
39

2018 USDA Food Security Report

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

2018 USDA Food Security Report

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service

Recommended citation format for this publication:

Coleman-Jensen, Alisha, Matthew P. Rabbitt, Christian A. Gregory, and Anita Singh.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Table 1A—Households and individuals by food security status of household, 1998-2018. . . . . . . . . 7

United States Department of Agriculture

A report summary from the Economic Research Service September 2019

Household Food Security

Alisha Coleman-Jensen, Matthew P. Rabbitt, Christian A. Gregory,

What Is the Issue?

What Did the Study Find?

Findings for households with children:

Very low food security

Findings for population subgroups and States:

Findings for food spending and Federal nutrition assistance participation:

How Was the Study Conducted?

2The food security survey was conducted December 9-18, 2018.

Worried food would run out

Prevalence of Food Insecurity—National Conditions and Trends

Food-insecure adults only—6.8%

Percent of households with children

• All households with children (13.9 percent)15

• Households with children under age 6 (14.3 percent)

Household income-to-poverty ratio:

Census geographic region:

fied for about 16 percent of households in metropolitan statistical areas.

• Households with children headed by a single woman (9.4 percent)

• Households located in principal cities (5.3 percent)

• Households in the South (4.8 percent).

among children in response to questions 11-18 in box on page 4.

United States in 2017 (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2018).

Household income-to-poverty ratio:

Census geographic region:

very low food security among children.

• supermarkets and grocery stores;

• restaurants, fast-food places, cafeterias, and vending machines; and

• “...any other kind of place.”26

Food Expenditures by Selected Household Characteristics

Household income-to-poverty ratio:

proportion of their income on food than low-income households.

Households that responded affirmatively were then asked:

• In which months of 2018 were SNAP or food stamp benefits received?

Food Security of Households That Received Food and Nutrition

Participation in Federal Food and Nutrition Assistance Programs

survey respondents, see footnote 39.

Coleman-Jensen, Alisha. 2015. “Commemorating 20 Years of U.S. Food Security Measurement,”

Coleman-Jensen, Alisha, Matthew P. Rabbitt, and Christian Gregory. 2017. Examining an

Anda mungkin juga menyukai